Re: [ga] Ballot question

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> 
> In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly,

Where are those posted?

> a motion has been put forth, ...

> Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts (adopted
> by the ICANN Board March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN Board should
> periodically review the status of the constituency groups to determine
> whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented"
> 
> Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly expressed their
> concern that the DNSO as currently constituted is not sufficiently
> representative
> 
> Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not been remedied
> internally, and efforts undertaken by the Names Council have failed to
> sufficiently address these concerns
> 
> It is therefore
> 
> RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:
> 
> 1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that DNSO dysfunctionality
> requires direct ICANN Board intervention

So far, so good.
 
> 2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative balance by being
> placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council and creating a
> bicameral DNSO.

Nonsense. The GA is a forum for discussion, the NC an executive body. They
cannot and should not be on a "equal footing".

The NC should pay more attention to GA discussion, and it might be worth
talking about re-structuring the NC to give more input from users, but it
is pointless to suggest some second complex structure on an "equal footing".

The real issue for balanced representation is whether we get nine At Large
board members actually seated. The GA is essentially irrelevant to this,
except that we might see some campaign discussion in the GA forum.

Of course if we ever get a properly constituted board, it might choose to
fix some things, perhaps including the NC and constituency structure. We
might even see the appointed Task Forces replaced by open-to-anyone  
Working Groups.
 
> 3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat support for the
> DNSO/GA to perform its functions.
> 
> 4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an appropriate
> funding model to support its activities.
> 
> 5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN Board (to be
> filled by a representative voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)
> 
> 6.  The General Assembly seeks to have both an Advocate and a Consensus
> Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with budgetary control and
> responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.

Once you start imagining the GA as one chamber of some sort of bicameral
structure, it needs budget, leaders, Board reps, ... No!

The budget would be a waste. All the GA needs to perform its actual 
function as an open discussion forum is a mailing list and an archive 
thereof.

We don't need leaders. We need facilitators, people who can help extract
a consensus from the mess of disagreements, personal agendas, ...

We don't need a GA Board rep. We need nine openly elected At Large members.

We don't need a bicameral structure. We need an NC that does its job.

> 7. The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment to the DNSO as
> originally envisaged as a place for cross-constituency dialogue and
> consensus building, and requests the Board to fulfil its obligation to
> facilitate the entry of thus far unrepresented constituencies.
> 
> [     ]  Agree
> [  !  ]  Disagree
--
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