RE: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>To borrow a trademarked phrase: if you need an election then "just do it"!
>
>One can propose a proposition and hold an election.  You don't need
>permission.  It would be interesting indeed to see if the holding of such
>an election were to be censored by the list "moderators".
>
>I suggest the first proposition be something like this:
>
>  We, the assembled GA, declare that we are a fully empowered body;  We
>  assert the right to establish our own agenda and procedures and to elect
>  and recall our own officers.
>
>The second proposition would be to establish a mailing list *outside* of
>the control of ICANN and the DNSO.  ICANN can't object - isn't such
>"outside" organization one of the goals of the ALAC?
>

I have a third proposition: to elect in this *outside* mailing list the new 
ICANN Directors that will replace the current Board as of Shanghai.
Actually, we could even hold an alternative meeting in Tombouctou and build 
an alternative ICANN. I propose a name: "NEWco".

I agree with you (Karl) when you say:
>As I read this discussion, it seems to me that it is between those who are
>willing to accept a subordinate and nearly voiceless status and those who
>are not.
>

Where we disagree is in the identification on the actions that will make the 
GA voiceless or not. To move the folks somewhere else, outside ICANN, will 
IMHO silence the little voice that the GA still has.

An example.
I have always opposed the principle of a GA whose Chairperson is elected by 
the NC, and not by the GA itself. But in practice when the election for my 
successor was taking place, I spent a lot of time emailing and talking to NC 
members to make the point that to elect a person that was not the candidate 
expressed by the GA (Danny Younger) would have been politically unwise. 
Philip Shepard, for instance, told me that he could interpret the role of 
the NC as the role of the Queen of England, who has to officially appoint 
the Prime Minister elected by the people of England.
That was to me good enough, and a better deal than to raise the matter of 
principle.
One can question whether the GA has been voiceful or voiceless up to now, 
but the real question you raise is whether by acting as a body separated 
from the DNSO and ICANN it would have been more or less successful.
My opinion is that it has been more successful staying in the structure. At 
least we are on public record, on the DNSO Web site, for having said what we 
have said in the years. Not much, but something more than the alternative, 
which would have been zero.

Best regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

--
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