Einar wrote:
{ I believe the single most controversial contentious issue is that of
{ membership and constituencies. Our problem is not a lack of knowledge
{ asbout who are the constituents, but a lask of ability to figure out
{ how to afford tham all proper representation and gove them a voice in
{ the affairs of the budding DNS industry and its place in the ICANN
{ spondored competition for a winning proposal.
Isnt it true that the more controversial an issue is, the further down
the governance ladder it should be addressed? If membership/
constituencies proposals have no ready consensus at the level of the
bylaw-writing drafters, then leave it open to determination by the
'committe of the whole' - for which the *obvious 'ground rule should be f
l a t, flat.
At that level, it can then be observed whether TM holders, say, have an
interest in reserved constituencies or individuals an interest in
formalizing the flat structure for the 'real' decisions of the DNSO. I
see no reason why they should, as it seems to be fairly 'orthogonal' to
such categories, but in any case, a) if there is a place for flatness,
it is surely at the beginning of things, b) it defuses any suggestion
that rules have been made 'top-down,' and c) the discussion itself is an
opportunity for all parties to learn decision-making without resorting to
endlessly verbose war.
In short, figuring out how to afford them all proper representation and
give them a voice is not a governance "problem," it's the soul of
governance itself.
kerry
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
