<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Notification of Self Organization
- To: ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] Notification of Self Organization
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=GPhiB2MYsGcjV1glfKJ0wMR4SYbuSPJsNuWkGu+H+xtcmHXo1iBMHGaYNtuUA3TRh+3V39HQtSY2qNxuRbzi5YADDex3Mlnzr2xqjGJeOhb1cYPANzLdW4HSC1y0u1agmW1sbXOe85BByIzdp+J6865IXTAOjenf1zOXBndMCcQ=;
- In-reply-to: <CA68B5E734151B4299391DDA5D0AF9BF108098@mx1.dsoft.sk>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
--- Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I admire your bright thoughts but the main problem is that business
> interests at ICANN are spread out into several constituencies with
> voting membership, whereas we do have only ONE non-com constituency
> for
> both non-com registrants and non-com non-registrants. You've got it?
>
> If you now compare the number of registrants & users with business
> companies we should then have at least 5 registrant-oriented
> constituencies.
>
> Just my two ounces along the line...
I don't disagree with you. The LSE report is supposed to address that,
reducing the overall number of constituencies to 3
"superconstituences". See:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm
If we had to reduce the number of constituencies immediately, I'd
suggest we start by eliminating the registry constituency (sorry
Chuck). :) If registries were simply considered suppliers who undergo
a tendering process from time to time (e.g. just like ICANN picks a
cleaning company via tender for fixed-length contracts to clean its
offices and toilets), then ICANN would be more reflective of the public
interest.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|