Re: [ga] NC recommendation on the GA

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

Phillip and all assembly members,

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>    GA,
> Let me provide context to recommendation 24 from the Names Council.
> This was based on an earlier analysis of the current two roles of the
> GA provided by the GA Chair:
> 1. a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange
> 2. a channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the
> constituency scheme participate in policy-making.

  Yes but this is not complete and does not necessarily reflect the
measured
consensus of the GA members.  I other words it is just the opinion of
the
Chair.  Hence it is only partly accurate and definitely incomplete.

  GA members need to have the right and responsibility to VOTE on
policy issues as part of that participation.

>
>
> The recommendations' objective is to KEEP those two roles and IMPROVE
> both of them by a separation.

  Separation is not necessarily a method of improvement.  In the case of
the
GA it certainly is not.

>  Don't be confused by use of the generic term "general assembly". The
> second objective is captured in recommendation 25, which seems not to
> have been posted before. And an earlier recommendation (19), also
> sought to incorporate new stakeholders.
> Philip
> ---------------------------------
> Recommendation 24 – general assembly. The gTLD policy development body
> should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum
> for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should
> be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the
> policy development body.

  Yeah, and this is wrong or incorrect.  And this "Recommendation" was
not vetted before the GA members, hence it is not legitimate...

>
>   .....
> Recommendation 25 – public consultation There should be public
> consultation on proposed new policy within strict time limits,
> typically not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as the
> channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the
> stakeholders/ constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora
> of self-declared interested parties should be specifically requested
> for input during such consultation. The necessary financial and human
> resources will need to be made available for public consultation.

  Fund raising has been attempted and offered by several including yours

truly for the use of the GA, and ONLY the GA for GA related business.
This was turned down the the NC and therefore never went past that
stage.  If the ICANN BoD and staff say there is not funding available
for the DNSO GA and the DNSO GA cannot raise it's own funds
without turning those funds over to the ICANN BOD and staff
than the GA cannot effectively be funded in a legitimate manner.
As such the GA is subject to capture by special interests of various
sorts.

>
> .....
> Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders. Other stakeholders, such as
> individual domain name holders, could be added subject to the
> requirements of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing new DNSO
> constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of procedure at
> www.dnso.org.

  The NC rules of procedure also were not voted on by the GA members
and never vetted their as such the GA members were short changed or
disinfranchized/hood winked as a result.  That in and of itself is
both illegitimate and in violation of the sprit of the MoU and White
Paper...

>
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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