[council] GA
Thomas,
I do believe there is a degree of suicidal misinterpretation
of the current NC recommendations.
The chair and alt-chair of the GA have been invited by the
Names Council to participate in discussions in ICANN evolution. That invitation
stands. Your perspectives are learned, reasoned and valued. Today you represent
the dual role of today's GA.
The NC has not said it wants to disenfranchise anyone. It has
redefined the role of the general assembly as being the meeting point for
stakeholders. The GA envisaged is not intended to fulfil the existing dual role
of today's GA.
The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on
them, and once they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO
and new GA.
So, the question remains, how can individual
opinion not so self-organised be factored into decision making ?
Is there something desirable about today's GA and the
respect it receives in trying to do this?
Is there possibly a better means of factoring in individual
opinion?
The NC recommendation tries to address this.
Philip
|