Re: FW: [council] [ga] GA representation on the Names Council

[KathrynKL@aol.com]

John Klensin lists three options for the GA below.  I know he has thought 
long and hard about this subject, but there is also a 4th option:  for groups 
that work with individuals to assist the GA in providing its own structure 
and vision.  There are grassroots membership organizations that work with the 
sticky, messy issues of grassroots democracy that can provide considerable 
expertise and insight to the GA.  

While the NC may someday feel the need to provide leadership to the GA, now 
is not the time.   As John Klensin points in his message below, "there are 
legitimate groups of people in the DNSO who are not represented in any 
constituency" and accordingly are not represented by the Names Council.  
These groups would view it very badly (as would the press and others I think) 
if the Names Council stepped in too quickly to provide guidance or assert 
authority.

I know that the GA seems as if it has been a disorganized for a long time.  
But we are just at the beginning of the ICANN Process.  Like the 
Noncommercial Constituency, the GA is a heterogeneous, international, diverse 
group.  It will inevitably take a little longer to organize than those with 
common commercial interests.  

A little more time is not a terrible thing.
Kathy Kleiman


klensin@MCI.NET writes:
> 
>  As long as there are legitimate groups of people in the DNSO who
>  are not represented in any constituency, the GA becomes their
>  only voice and, as such, a separate body.    ......
  
>  So, again, the question isn't whether or not that
>  "randomly-chosen representation" model is a good idea.   It is
>  which of the following three ideas you prefer:
>  
>  * Randomly-chosen representation
>  * Representation chosen by the GA.  This really entrenches them
>  as a separate body and probably guarantees selection by the
>  crazies.
>  * Some rapid, decisive, and balanced action from the NC to
>  reduce or eliminate the underlying problem.
>