Bret and all,
I am still not sure that we (INEGroup) agree with your contention here,
so I will ask you and the rest of the group a few questions.
1.) Is there any guaranteed seets on the NC for any interest groups or
constituency groups?
2.) Does the At-Large membership (General Assembly) vote for whom they
choose for all of the seats in the NC irrespective of any constituency?
3.) Are all proposed policies proposed within the DNSO determined by
majority vote of the At-Large Membership (General Assembly) before
sent over to the ICANN for review and eventual determination?
From the way I read the current "Merged Draft", the answer to #1 is
YES. If so this is not exceptable to us and I would venture most of the
participants in these discussions.
From the way I read the current "Merged Draft" the answer to # 2 is NO.
If so again we do not find that there is a "Consensus" in the current
"Merged Draft" as well....
>From the way I read the current "Merged Draft" the answer to #3 is also
NO. If so, than again we submit that there is not a "Consensus" in the
current
"Merged Draft" here either...
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> A few thoughts on constituences and memberships.
>
> Speaking for myself, I've waffled on the whole constituency thing for a
> long time. I first thought they'd be a good idea, then I thought that
> they would not, and now I'm really indifferent. I've realized though that
> the changes in my thinking have occurred because of the shifts in
> thinking about how the DNSO would make its policy recommendations.
>
> Now that there appears to be consensus (among *all* groups, including
> AIP, ORSC, CENTRE, dnso.org, INTA, and all of the commentators) that the
> Names Council should not be able to go into a room, close the door, and
> emerge with a policy recommendation, I have no strong opinion on whether
> the Names Council should have constituencies or not. Under the draft that
> was just circulated, there is a clear mechanism for making policy
> recommendations (Section 5). This process includes an open, public
> meeting of the General Assembly, open comment periods on all drafts, and
> fair hearings and reviews for persons and companies that believe the
> policy process is headed in the wrong direction. I think this guarantees
> everyone who has an interest in DNS policy the opportunity to impact its
> development.
>
> A balanced, fluid, constituency-based Names Council (along the lines
> advocated by CENTRE) simply initiates and then guides this open, public
> process. There are very important commercial and consumer interests
> though that have made a huge investment in the internet and who want a
> guaranteed venue for participation. It is obviously important to include
> them in this process. If a seat on the Names Council gives them some
> comfort that the process will work better, then I'm certainly not against
> it. As long as the policy recommendations come from a larger, open, flat
> membership (a la the "General Assembly"), I'm satisfied that the process
> will work.
>
> This latest "draft" Draft is obviously a compromise, but those of us who
> advocated a flat membership without constituencies can take great comfort
> (and some pride) in the fact that we've moved all of the participants in
> our direction. There is now consensus, I believe, that the Names Council
> is not a private, "council of elders:" it is a manager of the process.
>
> That's good enough for me, and I hope, a place for compromise.
>
> -- Bret
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___END____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
