Re: [ga] Ballot question

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

Sandy,

I like a lot of what you have said and disagree a little.

Here are the rules;
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html

Also please go make your nine member position known on the at large forum at;
forum@www.atlargestudy.org

Also please vote here in support of the motion.

I sure hope you do not consider this leading you but only facilitating your
contributions toward a consensus.

I could do this all day long so I disagree with your view on no need for funding.
Facilitators should be compensated.

Thanks for your contributions.

Sincerely,
Eric


Sandy Harris wrote:

> 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

--
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