[ga] STRUCTURE & MELBOURNE

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

The attached is a discussion between Greg and I that ocurred in the w-g
review.  I have crossed checked and cannot find the resolution to this
concept in the GA. It seemed to get eaten up in the remote
participation/selecting comments thread.
So at any rate are we preparing a recommendation on amending the by laws
so that the GA can somewhat self govern itself and be productive toward
its' own agendas?

Sincerely,

       At 12:18 AM 2/10/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
       > > (c) Membership in the GA shall consist of those individuals
listed in the
       > > GA Voting Registry.
       >
       >Who determines this?

       Registering voters is a Secretariat function - the form to submit
can be
       found at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html


       > > (d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to
procedures adopted
       > > by the NC and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the
Board in those
       > > seats reserved for the DNSO.
       >
       >Why did you switch from membership to participants?  And why are
the
       >procedures
       >determined by the NC?

       No reason on the switch - it can be changed to members for
consistency.
       Procedures are determined by the NC because under the bylaws the
NC is
       actually the responsible body for electing the Board members.
This was
       taken straight from the existing bylaws.

       > > (e) Officers of the GA shall include a chair, a co-chair, and
an ombudsman.
       > > Officers of the GA shall be elected annually according to the
voting
       > > procedures adopted by the GA and approved by the NC.
       >
       >Where does this "approved by the NC come from?"  Check out the
"SOs" they
       >do not
       >have parental guidance.

       The GA is not an SO - it's part of an SO, and the NC is the
governing body
       of the SO. This is a "dotting the i and crossing the t" line.

       > > (f) The Officers of the GA shall be members of the Names
Council.
       > >
       > > (g) The ombudsman shall be responsible for investigating
process issues
       > > within the DNSO, including but not limited to conflicts
involving the Names
       > > Council as a whole. The ombudsman shall report directly to
the ICANN Board
       > > of Directors.
       >
       >Excuse me, I would much rather they report to the GA.

       Well, the GA has no standing to do anything with such a report.
Typically
       an ombudsman function involving a dispute between two layers of a
structure
       will report to the supervising structure of the higher layer. The

       supervising structure of the NC is the Board of Directors.

       > > (h) Each constituency formed under Article VI-B Section 3 of
these bylaws
       > > shall select one member as the constituency observer to the
GA. Each
       > observer
       > > will be responsible for informing their constituency of the
GA's current
       > > activities on a timely basis.
       >
       >That is with the constituency charters not within the GA.  Why
all this self
       >imposed coalition with the commercial oriented constituencies.

       This was a suggestion by Bret Fausett, to address the need for
more
       participation in both the GA and the constituencies. I am unaware
of it
       being suggested by any constituency.

       > > There shall be no other fees required to participate in the
GA. The
       > > costs of GA mailing lists or other online mechanisms for
performing the
       > > work of the GA shall be the responsibility of the DNSO.
       >
       >Let us be prudent here on poor people lest the new Secretary
overseeing our
       >activities, Powell, think there is a divide. IP people stay at
the Waldorf
       >and GA
       >at the Y.

       Of course there is a financial divide - no one is pretending
there isn't.
       This is a simple expansion of the existing bylaws in order to
explicitly
       state that the online functions of the GA are required functions
and need
       to be paid for by the DNSO.

       > > (l) Upon application by no less than five members of the GA,
the Chair of
       > > the GA may recognize a Special Interest Group (SIG). Upon
such recognition,
       > > a SIG shall have a mailing list created by the Secretariat of
the DNSO.
       > > Each SIG shall have a clearly defined interest area, and
shall produce
       > > regular reports for the GA's consideration in that area. Each
application
       > > shall contain a definition of the interest area; a SIG name;
and the SIG's
       > > method for self-organization.
       >
       >You got me on this last one, Please explain.

       Working groups are large and noisy, which limits their
effectiveness AND
       increases their effectiveness. Working groups can currently only
be
       explicitly created by the Names Council, on issues the NC thinks
are
       amenable to handling through a WG. Working Group creation is
typically
       handled by creating a list, an archive for the list, and making
an
       announcement.

       What this portion of the proposal does is develop a mechanism for
bottom-up
       created groups, and guarantees that such groups will get at least
a mailing
       list for their work. While the NC can accept a recommendation
from any
       member of the GA, a SIG structure will allow those with common
interests to
       group together and hopefully produce more throrough reports for
       consideration by the GA itself, and the NC.

       Hope that helps,

       Regards,
       Greg

--
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