In reviewing my own words I fail to see how the
'Domain name holders' could ever organise a
sinmgle nominee. Looks like I'm down to 5  in
this proposal - fair enough - 5 is a good number
to do a well defined task very cleanly.

g




At 06:51 AM 11/3/98 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
>12 is still a lot of folk Kate. The question in my mind as I read
>bot the NOIE paper and your document is "Does the involvement
>of more people lead to better outputs?" Sadly, the answer tends
>towards 'no'. More people on a body leads to fragmentation,
>varying degrees of involvement, greater overheads, slower
>decision making processes with more erratic outcomes (look
>at parliament if you want a substantive demonstration of
>what happens when you get over 100 in the group!)
>
>The quality option for many groupings is not how large they
>are, but the degree to which they consult and gather views,
>and then create outputs which posses both consistency and
>coherency.
>
>So, if we a start with 
>
>- a function: policy oversight, 
>
>- and a preferred size: 6, 
>
>- and a preferred mode of operation: reviewing the output of
>   various working groups (or 'councils' as the NOIE paper
>   put it - although I find the word 'council' way too
>   grandiose for the function personally) using the process
>   of open review by soliciting comment from interested
>   parties.
>
>then does that suggest a Board structure?
>
>I'd contend that it does, and tends to lean towards having
>the board positions filled with folk who are as Kate
>terms it 'consumer rights' and 'legal resolution'. The
>technical functions and agent transactions are in my view
>not necessarily policy level activities.
>
>Lets see it this applies to a modification of Kate's proposal:
>
>>Here's a suggested breakdown of the primary interests of the groupings
>>of the discussion document - but in reality each group would decide for
>>*itself* which sector was its primary focus.  Each sector could elect
>>say, 3 board members, for a board of 12 people.
>>
>                         (1)         (2)        (3)         (4)
>                      Technical     Agent      Legal      Consumer
>Domain name holders                                           x
>IIA (ISPs)                            *                                       
>ISOC-AU                                                       x
>ATUG                                                          x
>ACA                                                           x
>Tradegate                                        x
>
>Now the only one I see which you may wish to include is the IIA
>position, given that the agents themselves are consumers of the
>registrar function.
>
>A smaller body as as that above will probably dischange its
>functions efficiently and effectively. A lerger body will
>be underworked, and will either disintegrate or start
>aggregating other functions and become an unhealthy point
>of concentration of powers. Neither outcome is desireable
>in a well balanced environment.
>
>Geoff
>
>--
>This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
>express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
>155 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns)
>Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§waia.asn.au to be removed.
>
>