[ga] On Accra agenda?

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Dear Mr. Cerf,

On December 17 you were kind enough to advise that certain GA concerns would 
be addressed at an upcoming Board meeting.  Will these concerns be placed on 
the agenda for Accra?

Best wishes,
Danny Younger
----------------------

Danny,

thanks for drawing this problem to our attention. 

I will place it on the agenda for an upcoming board
meeting.

vint

At 05:09 PM 12/17/2001 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Dear members of the Board:
>
>Since the early days of the formation of the DNSO, there has been an ongoing 
>debate regarding the respective roles of the General Assembly and the Names 
>Council.  This debate first took shape at the Berlin informal meeting of the 
>provisional Names Council:   
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990527.NCberlin.html
>
>     "Robert Hall - The work of the DNSO is done in the General Assembly
>
>     Javier Sola - No, the Names Council does the work
>
>     Antony Van Couvering - The Singapore meeting came up with a set of 
>principles that reflects a    compromise between the DNSO group and the 
Paris 
>Draft group - and the compromise is that the General Assembly does the work 
>through research groups and the Names Council manages and facilitates 
>consensus.
>
>     Jon Englund - [Goes over history of the bylaws]
>
>     Rob Hall - Is it appropriate to ask the ICANN Board to talk about the 
>intent of the bylaws?"
>
>
>Mr. Hall's question remains as valid today as when it was first posed over 
>three years ago.  
>
>When we look back at the bylaws, we note that the original bylaws stated:  
>"The Domain Name Supporting Organization shall create a Names Council to 
make 
>recommendations regarding TLDs, including operation, assignment and 
>management of the domain name system and other related subjects." 
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-06nov98.htm
>
>The role of the Council was defined as that of a body that would forward 
>recommendations (which ostensibly were based upon the work-product of the 
>General Assembly as per the above-cited compromise).
>
>After a period of time, the bylaws were amended to include the following:    
>"(The NC) shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry 
>out that responsibility (the management of the consensus building process), 
>including the designation of such research or drafting committees, working 
>groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry 
>out the substantive work of the DNSO.  Such bodies shall include at least 
one 
>representative nominated by each recognized Constituency..."  
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-31mar99.htm#VI-B 
>
>The clear intent of this amendment was to designate the Assembly as the home 
>for all research and DNSO-related consensus-building work, and to make sure 
>that such bodies in the spirit of fairness included (at a bare minimum) one 
>nominated representative from each constituency.
>
>This language was modified six months later to state:  "Each recognized 
>Constituency shall be invited to participate in each of such bodies."  This 
>change was suggested by ICANN staff who provided the following commentary:  
>"Eliminates the possibility that one constituency would try to veto the 
>creation of a working group by simply refusing to participate".  
>http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-amend-redline-8oct99.htm
>
>At that point in time it was understood that working groups of the GA would 
>handle the substantive work of the DNSO, that constituencies would be 
>cordially invited to participate in those GA bodies (and could decline 
should 
>they choose to exercise that option), and that based on the work of those GA 
>bodies, the Council would tender recommendations.  The overriding concern of 
>the Board was that any one group might act to veto the creation of an open 
>working group.
>
>At the same time that this change in the bylaws was effected, another change 
>simultaneously occured.  There was a clause in the bylaws that was 
>eliminated.  That clause stated:  "(j) The NC shall establish, subject to 
>review and approval by the Board, an appropriate mechanism for review of 
>grievances and/or reconsideration."  In eliminating this clause, the staff 
>commented:  "deleted reconsideration language because Board review is 
>sufficient protection."
>
>We have now reached the point where the General Assembly requires the 
>protection that can be afforded by Board Review.   The creation of open 
>working groups is repeatedly being vetoed by the Names Council to the 
>detriment of the General Assembly.  The very activity that this Board chose 
>to guard against is now routinely being flaunted by the Names Council.
>
>Instead of constituencies being invited to participate in the bodies of the 
>GA, the Council has manipulated procedures so that the GA is now only 
allowed 
>one representative on a body of the NC (task force), and no GA bodies are 
>ever "designated" by the Council.
>
>This perversion of the intent of the bylaws has led to acrimony, 
>divisiveness, and has greatly contributed to the dysfunctional state of the 
>DNSO.  The General Assembly is cognizant of the fact that the current 
>state-of-affairs in the DNSO is less-than-ideal, and yet has abided by 
>processes stipulated and has submitted well over 3500 comments pertaining to 
>review-related issues.  We have also put forth a proposal regarding a 
>possible restructuring of the DNSO:  
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-DNSO-Motion-Reorg-vote.html  
>
>We note that in response to our concerns, the Council has submitted to the 
>Board a Review task force report that instead paints the picture that all is 
>rosy, and that (after a year-long review) no changes in the DNSO are 
>required.  We strongly disagree.
>
>The General Assembly needs the benefit of a Board review of this matter as 
>the future of working groups and the intent of the bylaws remains at issue.
>
>Your assistance in this matter will be highly appreciated.
>
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger 


--
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