Re: [ga] Ballot question

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

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear Roeland,
>
> > |> I understand that GA members feel that the GA's
> > |> opinion does not count much in the ICANN Universe
> > |> and, maybe also considering the debate about the
> > |> At Large, this should change soon.
> > How? ... getting rid of the DNSO altogether or marginalizing it further?
>
> I'm not emotionally attached to the DNSO as such. We
> probably agree that ICANN decisions on domain names
> currently are not "Internet community consensus" but
> rather "some major stakeholders consensus".

  Even this is a bit reaching a conclusion at best, Alex.

> It's
> probably impossible to find the /ideal/ solution, but
> we should definitely strive to improve or replace it.
>
> > I posted the real cure last January, in WG-Review. I recognise that it
> > wasn't politically realistic, even when I posted it. This proposal is the
> > next-best thing. After two solid years, there continue to exist large blocks
> > of the disenfranchised (those without any road to a vote). You may be
> > content with that.
> No, I am not, see above. Unfortunately, I'm not
> convinced that this proposal is politically
> realistic either.

  I would disagree.  It is politically realistic.  I may not be ICANN BoD
and Staff's politically acceptable.

>
>
> > But, most of the rest of us aren't. The DNSO has been
> > broken, in this manner, from its very conception in Monterrey. Are you
> > denying that?
>
> The DNSO is broken in several ways; also from the
> Board perspective, I'm sure. However, existing
> constituencies are reluctant to give up what they
> have gained until now, so improvements will
> necessarily be piecemail: Addition of new
> constituencies, some general rules preventing
> the barring of applicants from joining a
> constituency if it meets its criteria, limits
> to membership in multiple constituencies etc.
> The radical alternative is giving up the DNSO
> and looking for different cleavages.

  Cleavages?  Really now!?  I don't look for
"Cleavages" in the same places you do!  >;)
But seriously though, replacing the DNSO
with what it seems the ICANN BoD is trying to justify,
with the ALSO in the manner they have thus far
proposed is unexceptable as well.

>
>
> > Equal footing is equal footing, in this case, on par with the existing NC.
> > The GA wants to be something other than a kaffeklatsch.
>
> Too broad! For instance, bicameral could mean that the
> GA can, with a certain majority, declare a community
> NC-declared consensus void. On the assumption that
> GA majority opinion and NC majority opinion conflict
> about a certain issue, what is the mechanism to resolve
> such a conflict?

  A vote by a real At-Large of course is the resolution
for such possibilities.

>
>
> Frankly, the GA often enough fails to show that it
> is anything else than kaffeeklatsch, and proposals
> to change that (such as the Best Practices) have
> been drowned in discussions. Instead of proposing a
> structure which enables the GA to give high quality
> input, the motion simply asks for more power and money.

  You didn't read it very carefully if you can make this statement
in your last sentence.

>
> If ICANN Board members are unhappy about the input
> quality they get from the DNSO NC, having an
> unstructured GA on par simply doesn't look like the
> solution.

  Maybe.  However the GA represents more diverse interests.
As such a more reasonable solution is likely to emerge.  The problem
with the GA is lack of a good process that is in place, but not followed
or is circumvented for various reasons, and a set of rules for
participation that are Selective Censorship, and illegitimate.

>
>
> > |> What shall the budget be used for? The motion seems
> > |> to call for a GA budget for a budget's sake.
> > If you had truely read the message board, other than occasional browsing,
> > you would have noted much of the discussion having occured within the prior
> > 30-days. The ideas presented and their implications, have been discussed for
> > years.
> Ouch. :)
>
> > |> The NC has a procedure for "determining consensus",
> > |> and it is obviously debatable. What is the GA
> > |> procedure for "voting the recorded consensus"?
> > |> (Whether an imperative mandate conflicts with
> > |> director's duties to the corporation is a different
> > |> question.)
> >
> > Many of us have no representation on the NC, period, and never have.
> (Since there is no constituency for individual domain
> name holders, I'm not represented on the NC either.)
>
> > Both the NewNet memo and the MHSC demand email make that clear. Do you have
> > some disagreement wih those facts? Or is it that those points are not important
> > to you?
> Or -- option c -- is it that the /solution/ presented
> here is not practical?

  No.

> These points are important
> to me, but I don't see how these broad ad hoc
> proposals are an improvement over the proposals
> previously discussed.

  They may not be with respect to some Motions that have been
presented in the past.  SOme of which have seconds, and are still
awaiting the Chair to request a ballot on.  None the less, this
Motion has broad support thus far.  Or at least enough support for
the Chair to request a ballot on.

>
> About New.net: It looks like the Business constituency
> tries a club model approach which conflicts with the
> ICANN promise of inclusiveness.

  ICANN IS thus far a CLUB.  Not and organization yet.  It does not
have legitimacy.  ICANN's BoD and in particular it's staff, have
seemingly acted independently and frequently declared "Consensus"
without being able to provide any evidence that "Consensus" exists.
As such, for instance with the UDRP, The ICANN BoD and staff
have not served the Stakeholders, gone against the suggestions
of the NC, the GA, and at least two of the Constituencies on
three occasions at least.  It therefore cannot be in compliance
with the White Paper or the MoU.

> The same applies when
> it comes to the representation of individual domain
> name holders. But this is no answer to the question
> how the GA shall come to consensus decisions about
> DNS recommendations to the ICANN Board in the future
> without having adequate procedures.
>
> > |> Wait a minute -- what are those people doing?
> > |> How are they elected? Are they paid? What "DNSO/GA staff"?
> > |> Doing what, hired by whom and responsible to whom?
> > |> Is there no need to think this through before
> > |> voting?
> > Responsibility and hireing authority is established within this motion. They
> > are plainly stated.
> So the 'Advocate' and the 'Consensus Leader' are elected
> volunteers which are hiring staff from the GA budget?
> What is the role of the GA Chair and such an Advocate then?
>
> > Also, the nature of the GA is heavily dependent on dynamic consensus
> > polling. Further, the GA needs to keep a public record of consensus results,
> > with statistical analysis capability. Right now, it's a mostly manual system
> > and is not scaleable. Those capabilities have been talked to death. Other
> > then a limited balloting system, we don't have anything like what the GA
> > really needs to function. We have already lost one elected official due to
> > workload. Such automated systems need to be put in place so we don't have to
> > depend on outside donated resources, for critical infrastructure, and that
> > we don't over-work our volunteers. A group of technologists, not having such
> > a system, kind of blows their credibility, don't you think?
>
> I'm sorry: This looks like a technologists' solution to a
> non-technical problem -- interaction of a highly heterogenous
> group. The GA's failure to deliver has little to do with workload,
> and I don't think this is the reason that we have lost one
> elected official.

  He should have never been elected or more properly run for election.
He should have know that, and I believe did.

> It's simply very difficult to get results if
> there is not even an agreed path -- it either takes superb
> leadership or, on the long run, good rules.
>
> > Given the context, it's not vague or incomplete at all. All the evidence is
> > presented within the motion and within the context of the GA and the general
> > DNSO. The itemized articles are not really separable.
> >
> > Given that this isn't a new idea and that we've all been discussing elements
> > of this for the past year, we really don't need yet more delay, don't you
> > think?
>
> It's not a question of time delay. If the majority of
> the GA wants to pass such a motion quickly, it may
> of course do so. But unless the GA improves the
> quality of its own deliberations first, the chances
> of acceptance seem rather low.

  Perhaps.  But the quality of deliberations should have little
to do with the motion gaining acceptance.

> Yes, this may turn
> out to be a vicious circle, but it can be broken
> (by hard work, willingness to compromise, good leaders
> and good rules, perhaps also voluntary contributions
> -- not by demanding more power and money without
> having working structures in place).

  Working structures are in place, have been.  Good leaders is a perception
issue.  Danny is a fairly good.  Hared work has and is still being done.
Many many voluntary contributions have been made, this motion not
withstanding.

>
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander

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