Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> 
> Note:  this draft is being circulated for public comment.  This will not
> represent a consensus document from the General Assembly until its members
> have ratified it.

I'm told that in Quaker (Society of Friends) meetings, some comments are
preceeded with "Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world, but though
art standing where I am about to shoot." That applies here.

I'm in sympathy with your overall feeling, but am going to be as tough as I
can manage in attacking your text. Nothing personal.

> General Assembly Position Paper on the DNSO:
> 
> Members of the General Assembly are committed to the mission of ICANN

Many are, no doubt, but I don't think it is at all clear that your general
statement is warranted. If you define ICANN's mission to include the task
of protecting trademarks, I certainly have serious doubts. Others here run
alternate roots and would no doubt fail to support a 'mission' that includes
putting them out of business.

Without a better definition of ICANN's mission (perhaps a reference to
an appropriate document?), your statement above is a meaningless and
annoying platitude. 

> and have actively participated in discussions regarding its future
> reorganization.  This involvement has manifested itself through contributions
> to the At-Large Study Committee Forum, dialogue on the General Assembly
> lists, participation in ALSC Outreach sessions, discussion at plenary
> sessions, and involvement in the independent efforts of groups such as NAIS
> and the Interim Coordinating Committee.

Yes, we talk a lot and in varied forums. Mentioning that here seems pointless.
 
> We believe that in view of the clearly-documented

Please provide a URL or other reference for the documentation you refer to.
Without that, your claim is meaningless.

> community consensus,

Please explain how you are using the terms 'community' and 'consensus'.

Both can be 'weasel words', defined at the speakers convenience to
support whatever position he or she chooses. I am not accusing you of
this, but the tactic is common enough in these discussions that clear
definitions are required from anyone who hopes to be taken seriously.

> the At-Large Study Committee will re-assess its preliminary conclusions,
> and will re-visit its decision

Will? I'd say 'should', or perhaps 'must'.

> to break our compact with the US government

This needs backing up, a demonstration that changing this number violates
the principles on which ICANN was founded, and assurances given to the US
gov't at the time.

One possibility is Dyson's 1998 letter assuring NTIA of ICANN's excellent
intentions:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/ICANN111098.htm

" ... elect the nine At Large Directors. ... the Board has an unconditional
    mandate to create a membership structure that will elect the At Large 
    Directors of the Board

" ... the Board, which will consist of the elected representatives of the
      entire Internet community

" Esther Dyson 
" Interim Chairman 
" On Behalf of the ICANN Board 

> and elect less than the requisite number of At-Large Directors promised.

'requisite' and 'promised' also need backing up.

> In principle, we support a reorganization of ICANN along functional lines,

I'm not sure I do support that. In any case, methinks discussions of how
to re-organise are out of order until after we've got 9 At Large directors
actually seated. 

> and see merit in a structure that enables participation for users, providers,
> and developers.

Yes.

> Once the user community is invested with a participatory
> structure and begins the process of electing its nine representative
> Directors to the ICANN Board, it will be necessary to assess the proper
> distribution of remaining Board seats.

No. Not until the nine are actually seated.
 
> We agree with the assessment of the ALSC that the ASO and PSO, in general,
> seem to be functioning well, and submit that there would be no apparent
> justification for any changes either in their structure or in their degree of
> representation on the Board.
> 
> At issue is the disposition of the three remaining Board seats.  As we
> support the concept of a Supporting Organization for Providers,

Do you claim there's a consensus on this? What evidence can you provide?
I haven't even seen it discussed, but then I don't read everything.

What about the question of a ccTLD SO? That has certainly been raised,
and I do not think it can be ignored in this context.

> the implication is clear - the DNSO, which to date has aptly been
> characterized as dysfunctional, must be decommissioned.

I don't think that is clear at all. Nor, as a matter of practical
politics, do I think the idea is salable to the present board.

> While it can be expected that those constituencies that have entered into
> contractual relationships with ICANN (the gTLDs, the ccTLDs, and the
> registrars), will form the Provider Supporting Organization, it is evident
> that such a restructuring raises questions as to the means for continued
> participation by others that have been loyal to the ICANN mission.
> 
> The General Assembly believes than no constituent element in the ICANN
> process should be disenfranchised in this restructuring.
> 
> Accordingly, we propose to the ICANN Board that the concept of the Open
> Public Forum, the General Assembly, wherein all constituent groups may have a
> voice and an opportunity to substantively address mutual concerns, be
> retained.
> 
> The General Assembly will provide a venue for cross-SO dialogue, thereby
> preserving the consensus-building efforts that are the cornerstone of the
> ICANN process.

Yes, the GA is necessary for roughly the reasons you state. However, that
is more-or-less irrelevant here. The main question has nothing to do with
the assembly. 

The question should be how to elect nine At Large board members in some
way that can at least hope to approximate fairness of representation and
honesty of implementation, without requiring astronomical expenditure or
asking us to believe in utterly implausible mechanisms.

That is a really hard question. We almost certainly cannot produce a
perfect answer. What we should be working on is producing a tolerable
answer.  

Unfortunately, the process has been subverted. The committee, working
under bogus terms of reference provided by an improperly constituted
board, is trying to foist the notion that reducing the number of At
Large directors both has some relation to solving the problem and has
some chance of achieving 'community consensus'.
(See discussion of 'weasel words' above.)

Methinks what we urgently need as, in your words, "a consensus document
from the General Assembly" is a simple statement that we completely
reject that notion, that we consider half the board as At Large directors
a basic principle. 

> We encourage the ICANN Board to direct the Names Council to "wrap up its
> affairs" and to pass the mantle of leadership to the General Assembly.  The
> Assembly will facilitate this transition by undertaking those committee and
> task force projects started by the Council, and will bring them to conclusion
> in a thoughtful and timely fashion.

We might just as well encourage them all to wear tutus and play bagpipes
at their next meeting. This is about as plausible as your suggestion.

Also, it is about as useful. Granted there are some fine folk and some
good discussions here, do you have any evidence at all that this body
has either the organisation or the leadership for this task?
--
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