Re: [ga] From the Archives

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

Dear Danny,

Please let us in on your plan here.  You are doing one hell of a job fighting
top-down abuse. It is time to let us plebes in on your master plan.  If it is
good we will join ranks.  Right now we know you are up to something but do not
know what.  Help us to help you.

Eric,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Original post from: Dr. Nii N. Quaynor
> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:27:54 -0000
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc00/msg00087.html
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> The concept of control in the referenced context seems inappropriate since it
> suggests capture, one of the very things the bylaws attempt to avoid. There
> seems to be intended a carefully crafted balance between consensus building
> facilitators (names council) and the consensus body (general assembly) in the
> portion of the bylaws you've quoted.
>
> To answer you directly, all the work to be done may be done by the GA and
> much of it may be initiated by the GA as well, in the steady state. Here's a
> quote from the dnso link that captures this:
>
> "(c) Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider
> domain name policies
> or recommendations. If the NC undertakes consideration of a domain name
> topic, or if a
> Constituency so requests, the NC shall designate one or more research or
> drafting committees,
> or working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic, and shall
> set a time frame
> for the report of such committee or working group."
>
> So one may conclude that the GA can:
>
> 1. Initiate new topics for Working groups to consider;
>
> 2. Be members of the Working Groups;
>
> 3. Accept updates and reports from current Working Groups
>
> 4. Do *anything else it wants to do* not assigned to others in the DNSO
> constituencies, which in their opinion advances the cause of the DNSO. For
> example, the GA may develop a position on the ICANN budget or on the fee
> structure to fund ICANN, etc.
>
>
> In addition, this section of the ICANN bylaws specifically dealing with the
> GA states:
>
> "Section 4: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
>
> (a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO,
> and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO.
> The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge of and
> an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary
> responsibility, and who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise
> to the work of the
> DNSO, including work item proposal and development, discussion of work items,
> draft document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
> committees and working groups. "
>
> This suggests that the real work gets done in the open forum, where
> participation in the work of the DNSO would occur. So, may be its not so much
> what would the GA do which is not already being done by the NC but more so
> that the NC cannot possibly do all the work in isolation and requires the
> open forum of the GA to do its work.
>
> Regards,
> Nii
>
> --
> 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