How to get rid of volunteers (Re: [ga] How to disenfranchise 489 members of the DNSO)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Possibly the GA representatives to Task Forces should just go on  
strike, or something like that.  That would certainly be healthy  
for real life... Kristy, what do you think?



I personally agree that the GA must be changed in order to fulfill  
its function as a forum for meaningful exchange between  
constituencies.  I even believe that GA votes on substantial  
resolutions do not make it easier for the GA to fulfill this  
function, and that open polls on such issues are more appropriate  
(different thread ["tools"], please comment on this topic there).

However, I strongly believe that restricting GA membership to  
constituencies' members would be a mistake. 

The DNSO would deprive itself of valuable public input, and it would 
also deprive itself of quite some amount of volunteers' dedication  
and effort, and of external insight and comments.  The DNSO would  
remove the (possibly lose) connection to "veterans" who may no  
longer be active within constituencies, but still hang around [even  
when they are quiet most of the time; this may be a good opportunity 
for some of you folks to speak up].  The DNSO would lose the ability 
to use the GA as a forum for cross-SO exchange - not even the ccTLDs 
would be admitted!  The DNSO would lose the (necessary!) flexibility 
which the GA adds to a task-force based policy-making process; that  
loss cannot be fixed by a public comment period, or by surveys.  

I'm sure I forgot quite a few points why this recommendation is the  
wrong approach.


"For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and  
wrong."

In the case of the GA, the Names Council has picked a solution of 
that kind.

To Philip: When I asked for a change to and further discussion of  
this recommendation, I meant that. I did not mean a mere footnote  
stating what the GA chair thinks.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/






On 2002-05-30 14:40:02 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>From: DannyYounger@cs.com
>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:40:02 EDT
>Subject: [ga] How to disenfranchise 489 members of the DNSO
>To: ga@dnso.org
>
>Names Council Recommendation 23 - 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.
>
>This recommendation has been approved by every constituency in the DNSO.  
>
>There are no more than 100 members of the GA voting roster that have 
>identified themselves as "agreed stakeholders".  The rest of us that don't 
>belong to established constituencies (489) have been told to take a hike by 
>the elitists on the Council.  
>
>This type of fuck-you attitude is precisely what is wrong with both the DNSO 
>and ICANN. 
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" 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