[council] [ga] GA representation on the Names Council

["Joe Sims" <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>]

___________________________________________________________________________
____

 This message is intended for the individual or entity named above.  If you
are not the intended
 recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
 notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system.  Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____

FWIW (which here might well not be very much), I do not think this
suggestion would be productive.  It might well ameliorate the concerns you
mention, but to what effect?  You seem to think that solving this concern
will solve this concern; I think it much more likely that it will simply
allow this concern to be replaced by another concern.  In addition, it
merely feeds the notion, wrong on both the facts and (IMO) good policy,
that the GA is/should be some independent body, with its own representation
on all relevant bodies.  The GA was intended to be nothing more than a
collection of all DNSO involved people, and a forum where everyone could
have a say;  it was certainly not intended to be an independent power
structure within the DNSO.   If there is a need/desirability for the DNSO
to be changed in some way, that is/should be a NC policy issue, taking
input from all interested parties and managing that input to a consensus;
that process should not be shortchanged/anticipated through some ad hoc
manuever as you suggest, the very existence of which would indicate that
the policy decision had already been made and only the implementation was
left to talk about.  IMO, what is needed here is NC leadership, not some
device that is aimed at simply mollifying the loud voices through a
surrender of leadership.  Of course, if the NC chooses to recommend some
restructuring of the DNSO, and can demonstrate consensus support for such,
I assume the Board would obviously give that great weight.  Personally,  I
find it odd that anyone would conclude, after only a very few months of
experience and very little direct effort by an NC that has been fully
occupied with trying to make itself into a working entity, that the NC
cannot effectively manage the consensus development process.  I at least
would like to see it try to do so and fail before we conclude it cannot be
done.
---------------------- Forwarded by Joe Sims/JonesDay on 11/17/99 07:17 PM
---------------------------
                                                                  
 (Embedded                                                        
 image moved   Raúl Echeberría <raul@inia.org.uy>                 
 to file:      11/17/99 03:44 PM                                  
 pic19801.pcx)                                                    
                                                                  


Extension:

To:   council@dnso.org
cc:    (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject:  [council] [ga] GA representation on the Names Council




FYI,


>Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:49:45 -0500
>From: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
>Subject: [ga] GA representation on the Names Council
>To: ga@dnso.org
>X-Mailer: Mulberry (Win32) [2.0.0b1, s/n U-301227]
>Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
>
>I've just realized (being a bit slow) that a lot of the
>frustration that has periodically filled the GA list with noise
>and name-calling is due to the perception that the NC was
>composed of people appointed by Board-authorized constituencies
>and that there was no possibility for people who were not part
>of those constituencies to have a voice.  It it equally clear
>that recognition of the (an) IDNO won't solve the problem --
>someone will always feel left out.
>
>I also realized that this has some similarity to the problem the
>IETF faced some years ago in trying to figure out how to select
>a (quite powerful) nominations committee in an organization that
>has no membership list.
>
>So, a proposal, independent of the chair selection process or
>anything else...
>
>(i) the NC be immediately expanded by three members.   If I
>correctly recall the bylaws, they can't be given the vote
>without ICANN Board action, but it should be possible for the NC
>to seat them as observers (with the same standing to participate
>in discussions) on its own initiative while the formalities are
>being pursued.
>
>(ii)  All three people selected to these positions will serve
>for one year.  If any resign or decline to serve, the
>replacement will be only for the duration of the original year.
>The intent it to get this mess straightened out during the year
>-- turning the GA into another constituency is not, IMO, a
>desirable long-term approach-- and replace it with  whatever
>permanent arrangements are needed/appropriate.
>
>(iii) Those eligible to serve will be the entire
>contents/membership of the -announce and -ga lists as of
>(ideally) last Friday.  Selection of a date in the recent past
>prevents "stacking" by a rash of subscriptions.   If capturing
>last Friday's list is not feasible, the list contents should be
>captured as of the time this note is received at the
>secretariat.  In the interests of fairness, the secretariat
>should add everyone who has been excluded from the list within
>the next month for antisocial behavior back into the pool.
>
>(iv) The _sole_ qualifications for these seats shall be
>
>     (a) Membership in the GA, as defined above by list
>membership
>
>     (b) Willingness to provide the secretariat and the NC a
>     potentially-authenticatable name (e.g., one that might
>     appear on a driver's license, passport, or national
>     identity card, rather than a network persona), postal
>     mailing address, telephone number, and other reasonable
>     information to establish that the emailing address belongs
>     to a person.
>
>(v)  Within that pool of qualified names, an ordering will be
>established by random selection (reference below to a procedure
>that is known to be tediously fair; let's not waste a lot of
>energy discussing this or other ways to get randomness).   The
>first three names chosen will be seated as Names Council
>members.   If one or more decline to serve, or subsequently
>resign, he or she will be replaced by the next person on the
>list.  Beyond those seated, the ordering of the names will not
>be revealed in order to prevent gaming the system or one person
>resigning in favor of another (to preserve randomness, people
>should be encouraged to serve by any means necessary, including
>fear that they might be replaced by someone they would consider
>unacceptable).
>
>Now, the weakness in (v) is that someone (or some very small
>number of people) have to be trusted to do the computations and
>then keep the list.  For convenience, I'd favor turning this
>over to ICANN staff  or the board, and letting Mike or Esther do
>it.  But some of those who are feeling least represented
>obviously don't trust them.  It probably should be someone who
>is not actively involved in the current DNSO fray -- perhaps we
>could try to pull Tamar Frankel out of semi-retirement on this
>subject (warning: I haven't consulted her about willingness to
>serve -- this proposal will come as more of a surprise to her
>than it does to you).   Or someone might have a better idea. But
>I'd personally be reasonably comfortable having the NC or Board
>make the choice, with the main requirement being integrity.
>
>Anyway, does that appeal to anyone?  Comments from NC readers of
>this list?  Other suggestions?
>
>If we can't trust elections, maybe we can trust Gauss.
>
>     john
>
>Reference: the current randomization procedure used in the IETF
>is described in
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-selection-04.
>txt
>It has been nit-picked extensively by experts (on both
>randomization and nit-picking), for whatever that is worth.
>
>
>

pic19801.pcx