Re: [ga] Call for Action - ALSC Questionnaire

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Joanna Lane wrote:

on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at patrick@quad.net.au wrote:

> [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html

Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and representative of
the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time, it
seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
answering questions posed in their discussion paper.

I would agree 100%, and for the record I believe that the DISCUSSION
thereon, as it pertains to the GA - At Large relationship, should be
carried
out on ga@dnso.org, where this now is.  Since there has long been
no "At-
Large"  (AL) to speak of, the GA has been playing that role, and
very often
going way outside the bounds of matters that actually fall within the
DNSO
charter, those matters, of course, being Domain Names. The General
Assembly
has not been chartered to give advice on the operation of ICANN
as a whole,
and a clearly defined  policy that delineates what matters it
should take up
and what it should not should be established. (At least until any reorganization
of ICANN changes the structure.)

Consequently, along with Joanna I think that we as individuals would serve
our cause well to return comments to the ALSC as its paper requests, while
at the same time use this opportunity as Joanna suggests to help define how
the GA and the At-Large might best work together. The matter of the
Individual's Constituency (or IDNHO or by whatever alphabet soup one
wants to call it) is particularly an ISSUE on which coordination might well
be worked out -- that ISSUE is one of deep concern to both the GA and
the AL, and perhaps by working together on it we could find out what, if
anything, the Names Council intends to do about it.

Bill Lovell