[council] GA Mailing Lists

["Danny Younger" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Philip,

I have taken note of several concerns expressed in the Names Council
teleconference today regarding the new General Assembly mailing lists that I
would like to address.  Allow me to begin by thanking the membership of the
Names Council for supporting these new efforts by the GA; we do hope that
this will mark the beginning of increased cooperation between our respective
organizations.

These newly created mailing lists are to be regarded as discussion lists,
each one with a different particular focus.  At the present time, these
forums will be used to facilitate discussion of General Assembly work items,
their proposal and development, and will allow for draft document
preparation.  To better illustrate this latter point, please note that I
have today posted a request to our ga-roots list asking for a volunteer
effort to assist the Names Council in the preparation of a "briefing paper"
on the topic of roots.  The proposal has already been well-received, and I
expect to be able to offer your Interim committee the benefit of our
research in short order.

It has been asked why the General Assembly has not moved forward to appoint
an administrator/moderator for these discussion lists.  The General Assembly
is well aware of the management role of the Names Council and of our mutual
responsibilities under the ByLaws.  As I understand these Bylaws, only the
Names Council is empowered to "designate" the research or drafting
committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA (that it determines
are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO).   At this
time, our mailing lists are only forums that allow for "work-item"
considerations; they are not yet "committees".

It is my hope and expectation that as time passes, each such mailing list
can come to self-organize in a bottoms-up manner and select a leadership for
administrative purposes; within the context of the GA, this is approach is
clearly favored over a top-down appointed leadership.

Each mailing list has the potential to be cooperatively utilized by the
Names Council as a "committee" designated/tasked with particular
work-product expectations.   This should facilitate the Business Plan of the
Names Council, as our membership can be called upon to assist.  It is my
expectation that at some point soon, the Names Council will actually
determine the necessary Terms of Reference for their many projects so that
we may all thereby get to work accordingly (not to be overly critical, but
this process so far has taken much too long).

As such time as the Names Council deems it appropriate to convene a
committee from the membership of the General Assembly, and to exercise their
management role (perhaps by assigning an NC liaison to each such group),
then we can all move forward towards the desired integration with the NC
Business Plan.  It should be noted however, that we of the General Assembly
have all been aware of the Council's expressed reticence to create working
groups (favoring instead small NC committees), and that we members of the GA
still have serious issues with what we regard as the filtering and dilution
of our work-product by NC appointed Task Forces.   I am hoping that we can
surmount these obstacles and jointly come to create the necessary reports
and supporting materials required by the consensus process.

With respect to "moderation" of the General Assembly lists, please be
advised that we have recently increased the number of List Monitors (that
attempt to enforce list decorum) from one to five, and have already engaged
in necessary disciplinary actions.  We deal with contentious issues, and
passions will run deep on our lists, but efforts are being made to minimize
abusive behavior.

With regard to another concern, we appreciate the fact that maintaining
these lists is a costly proposition, and we seek to cooperate with the
Council (most especially at a time when it has been made clear that the lack
of sufficient funds has placed the voting rights of certain constituencies
in jeopardy).   We will abide by the recommendation of the Council to
exercise fiscal responsibility by closing down at least one list.  It has
been suggested in your teleconference that the GA-full list be closed.    I
will raise this matter with the Assembly, but in candor I am expecting a
furious debate (as the need for the co-existence of a "full" list in
conjunction with a "rules" list was the topic of heated discussion for a
very long period of time).  One way or another, we will comply with your
request to eliminate one list, and will advise you of our deliberations in
the immediate future.

Finally, a question was posed with regard to the "remit" of these lists, and
the degree to which the GA lists may integrate with the NC Business Plan.
The General Assembly has a need for focused forums that will allow for
discussion of various domain name policy issues that may not exist within
the context of a formalized NC "Plan" (the most recent example being the
creation of a list to deal with the topic of "roots", which was not at all
envisioned in the Council's Business Plan).  We need to retain the ability
to chart our own path to some degree in an effort to ensure that the Board
remains well-advised with respect to timely issues.    As such, while to
some extent these lists will allow for some work to progress in parallel
with NC efforts, we do plan to tackle some issues that may not currently be
on the Council's established agenda.   These matters will be treated as
work-item considerations, and may procedurally result in the NC being asked
to consider new domain name policy issues.