Re: [ga] Defining the General Assembly's Agenda

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

babybows.com wrote:

> Dear General Assembly members:
>
> The Chair of the NC, Philip Sheppard, has put forward an invitation to the
> Chair of the General Assembly to address the Names Council regarding the
> GA's work agenda.  As I consider this to be a formal request to define our
> own agenda, I am asking the General Assembly to begin a discussion on this
> topic.

  It is my belief and it seems a number if not majority of GA members, that
having only the chair address the NC is inadequate, and may not be
reflective of the desires of the GA membership.  As such, I request
that any and all interested GA members be afforded and opportunity to
address the NC in Stockholm without delay.

>
>
> I will be happy to initiate such dialogue by putting forth some of my own
> personal views:

  Thank you for noting that these are you own personal views...

>
>
> I have noted a reticence on the part of the Names Council to establish
> committees and working groups drawn from the General Assembly membership.
> The NC Business Plan currently calls for Interim Committees (Names Council
> representatives only) and other groups to address a limited collection of
> domain name policy issues.  Phil Sheppard, in commenting on these "other
> groups", has stated that this terminology is "precisely intended not to say
> working group; the whole point of this discussion is to figure out how to
> get work done, which may or may not be a working group as we've known them.
> So "other group" means some kind of outreach group." My concern is that the
> NC is selecting only its own representatives to carry out such tasks,
> thereby thwarting the clear intent of the by-laws and denigrating the
> contributions of our General Assembly membership.
>
> That the Names Council has no great love for the working group has been
> amply demonstrated on several recent occasions - the decision to limit the
> life of the initial Review Working Group to a scant three weeks (23 Dec. to
> 15 Jan.), the ongoing battle to shut down participation in the Review
> Working Group, and the final decision to terminate the Review Working Group
> and its mailing list (in spite of the vocal objection of dozens of
> contributing members that favored an ongoing DNSO Review).

  The DNSO Review was a private and closed ML that should have not been
so, as you well know Danny.  As such I can see at least one reason why the NC
decided as they did.  Until or unless ALL or ANY Working Groups established
by, or at the request of, the GA members is completely open, such Working
Groups cannot, and should not be considered legitimate.

>  The Names
> Council appears to be threatened by the possibility that a Working Group
> will reach consensus on how to restructure the DNSO (more specifically, they
> are threatened by the majority opinion within the Review Working Group that
> called for the dissolution of the Names Council constituency structure).  In
> my view this explains why, in spite of a call from the ICANN Board to have
> the Names Council and "other sources" put forward proposals regarding a
> possible restructuring of the DNSO (Resolution 01.28), not one substantive
> proposal has come forth from the NC regarding the restructuring of our
> Supporting Organization - some of our constituency representatives doubtless
> seek to remain entrenched in their positions of power, fearing the
> consequences of a re-organization.

  I agree with this evaluation, as do most of our [INEGroup] members, but this
in no way makes any thus far created WG ML legitimate.

>
>
> As an agenda item, I would see the General Assembly, one of the "other
> sources" referred to by the Board, begin work on the restructuring proposals
> that the Board has requested and that the Names Council has chosen to
> ignore.

  Agreed if and only if such a WG is open to ANY and ALL interested
parties or GA members.

>
>
> At the heart of this issue is proper representation.  At a time when the
> Names Council has decided that those that cannot pay cannot vote, I stand in
> favor of ousting such a callous administration.  Domain name policy issues
> must be voted upon by a body that is fully representative of the Internet
> community.  Any group that advances a proposal that threatens that precept
> must be shown the door.

  Also agreed.  We the stakeholders have already paid.

>
>
> This leads me to my next concern, the future of our At-Large Directors.  The
> very existence of ICANN was predicated on a membership model that called for
> a great many more At-Large Directors than we now have.  The privatization of
> the Internet moved forward because promises were made at the outset with
> respect to full representation of the public in the ICANN structure.

  Also agreed here.  But many of us have now recognized that the ICANN BoD
has no intention of stakeholder representation in any serious way.

>  As I
> review the questions posed by the "clean-sheet" study of the ALSC, I
> conclude that this committee has re-opened questions that were already
> firmly decided in 1998.

  Yes.  And this is why it is an unnecessarily redundant "Study".

>  Coupled with a Budget Proposal for 2001-2002 that
> has set aside no funds for the At-Large electoral process, I see an agenda
> at work that seeks to further disenfranchise the public.

  Yes that that budget for elections for @large directors is exactly -0-.
That is unexceptable and outrageous.  It further proves the point that
the ICANN BoD is not interested in Interested parties/Stakeholders
participation and therefore disregards the White Paper and the MoU.
Therefore I can only reasonably conclude that ICANN is in abeyance
of it's contract with DOC.

>
>
> As an agenda item for the GA, I would like to have the membership of this
> Assembly engaged in the "research" permitted to us under the By-Laws, that
> will allow us to submit our own "study" to the ALSC.
>
> This General Assembly faces a choice - we can either work in harmony with
> those that would deny rights and representation to others, or we can fight
> for an ICANN in which representation is guaranteed to all.

  There is of course a third and forth choice.  I am sure I don't need to
spell our what those choices are...

>
>
> My vision of the appropriate agenda for the GA may substantially differ from
> yours.  It is important that we reach a consensus on the way forward so that
> the Names Council may properly be advised.  I look forward to hearing your
> comments.

  You just did! You have before.  You may continue to.

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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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