Re: [ga] Comments on GA section of Review Task Force report

["JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>]

> Greg Burton wrote:
> 
> > ------
> > Comments:
> > 
> > 1. "no little" should be replaced with "little" - this appears to be
> > a typo. It would probably be more accurate to say that GA
> > participation is sporadic, depending on circumstances.
> 
> How periodic is involvement? are there any numbers?  what are the
> conditions etc...?
> 
> > 
> > 2. Thirteen WG-Review members responded to a poll on the Task Force
> > question "Is the GA properly defined?" Twelve answered "no", and one
> > didn't know. This perceived lack of definition probably contributes
> > to both the participation and authority issues. A better definition
> > of the GA will probably require changes to the ICANN bylaws.
> 
> > 3. The GA as a group appears to lack any authority whatsoever. It
> > has no mandated abilities beyond nominating ICANN BoD members.
> > 
> > Text:
> > -------
> > How to address the current structural problems to enhance the GA
> > within the DNSO has received much discussion, and should be further
> > addressed. ------- Comments: *** 1. The ICANN Bylaws state that "the
> > NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually."
> > 
> > As of February 1, 2001 the General Assembly lacks a chair, as Mr
> > Roberto Gaetano's term has expired. Mr. Gaetano brought this issue
> > up in November 2000 at the Marina Del Rey meetings, well in advance
> > of this circumstance. Mr Gaetano indicated at that time that he
> > would be willing to continue for a few months, and recommended that
> > the bylaws be amended to allow direct vote for the GA chair by the
> > GA itself. On January 30, 2001, Mr Gaetano wrote to the GA
> > (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00087.html):
> > 
> > "...I have the impression that nothing moves, and that therefore we
> > may found ourselves at the next meeting at more or less the same
> > point."
> > 
> > At this point in time, 10 weeeks later, it does not appear that the
> > NC has yet placed this item on it's agenda, or had substantive
> > discussions on the NC council list.
> 
> Obvious oversight? or dereliction? Who (specifically) is/was in charge
> of keeping track of such things (i.e. Roberto's term expiring and
> selection process)?   Is this not some sort of secretariat function? 
> or do NCers just scrawl this sort of thing on Post-it notes? How does
> it work?

According to what I heard (and please correct me if I am wrong), it 
is not within the perview of the NC to make decisions regarding how 
the chair is elected.  It is up to the BoD.  That seems to be the 
"out" for the NC when it comes to doing anything to assist the GA.

Then they did "not have time" to get to all agenda items, so 
postponed them to the next monthly meeting.

It's a crock.
> 
> > 
> > (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010208.NCtelecon-agenda.html)
> > Unless this is addressed at the regularly-scheduled Names Council
> > teleconference on February 26, Mr Gaetano's statement appears
> > correct. It should also be noted that the NC has been unable to
> > address all of it's agenda items in the timeframe allocated to these
> > items, and simply placing it on the agenda does not mean that it
> > will be dealt with promptly.
> 
> A reminder usually helps.
> 
> 
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>        Hermes Network, Inc.
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html