On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 03:03:28PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> Kent,
>
> You are absolutely CORRECT!!!!
>
>
> >The clauses you refer to REQUIRE THE NC TO CONSULT WITH THE
>
> Consult yes, listen to **NO**!
>
> >MEMBERSHIP AND THE CONSTITUENCIES, unless there TRULY is no time.
>
> Membership yes, (general/at large/individual)
> membership **NO**!
It is true that the WMB model does not support *individual* members
directly. However, there is a quite well-defined and effective
general membership: the geenral membership in the WMB model elects the
Names Council, and is the body from which the policy determining
committees are drawn, as in the Paris Draft.
> The truth of the matter is that the BMW draft
> features a "COUNCIL OF ELDERS" approach to DNS
> Policy Formation,
The truth of the matter is that you are simply engaging in mindless
sloganeering, and parroting your patrons terminology.
The Names Council is composed of representatives elected by the
general membership for fixed terms (two years as opposed to three
years in the Paris draft.) The Names council *manages* the policy
development process, but does not in itself make policy, except
possibly in the rare case when the ICANN board makes an explicit
request for an expedited recommendation. Even in that circumstance
the NC is required to involve the constituencies/membership if it
possibly can.
If the NC is abusive, it will be voted out of office.
I note the following interesting inconsistency in the Paris Model --
it makes an assumption of competence on the part of the membership,
in the sense that the membership is considered capable of developing
policy. At the same time it assumes that the membership is not
competent to elect responsible NC members.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
