[ncdnhc-discuss] Structure TF.

[Raul Echeberria]

Dear friends:

The Chair of the Task Force, Philip Sheppard, offered a report draft to 
comment.

Please see attached the document.

My first comments could be read in 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00083.html

I'd like to call your attention in the Dave's (GA rep. in the TF) proposal 
which have been included in the draft report by the chair with this redaction.

--------

3. Policy support to the Board. Against an objective to provide policy 
input to the Board, the TF recommends that the three members of the 
proposed At-large administrative council are given membership of the DNSO 
Names Council, and participate within that body exercising voting and other 
policy-related privileges in the same way as the three representatives of 
the DNSO constituencies.  (The three ALSO reps would have no vote in the 
election of DNSO Board members).

This solves at a stroke three issues:
§       the likelihood of contradictory or confusing advise reaching the 
Board from the DNSO and the ALSO
§       creating a clear mechanism for ALSO/DNSO policy interaction.
§       avoiding duplication by DNSO constituencies in policy work in both 
the DNSO and ALSO.

Mechanistic details:
1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 6 Board members.
2. ALSO also elects 12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC proposal but 
with an administrative role to organise the SO and outreach downwards on 
policy)
3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top 
geographically diverse of the directly-elected council election list) 
appointed to Names Council to input on policy matters.
4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name holders 
constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to participate in the ALSO and 
become AL Administrative Council members and reps to the NC.
5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO constituencies 
(and expands to include the AL Administrative Council and NC reps).

---------

It is a new proposal which should be discussed in the constituency. My 
first reaction is that there is a confusion in relation with the role of 
the AL membership and the Individual Domain Name Holders representation in 
domain name's related matters.

I suggest to read the concerns expressed by the IPC's representative about 
this point in

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00082.html


Wait for your comments.

Best Regards,

Raul





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20020116/7948139f/attachment-0001.html>