RE: [ga-review] Individuals' Constituency

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Joop Teernstra
|> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 1:22 PM
|> To: Danny Younger; ga-review@dnso.org
|> Subject: Re: [ga-review] Individuals' Constituency
|>
|>
|> At 11:40 5/05/01 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
|>
|> >I would like to see the GA petition the Board for acceptance as a
|> >Constituency in the Names Council.
|> >
|> >Let the discussion begin.
|> >
|>
|> Thank you, Mr Chairman, for expressing your personal opinion as to a
|> possible approach of representing Individual stakeholders.
|>
|> This idea (Greg Burton's , originally?) was expessed by myself
|> in Melbourne as a possible compromise solution. Roberto seemed to like
it,
|> but it found no good reception in the NC. Even the NCDNHC, by mouth of
Vany Martinez,
|> was against it and preferred a specific self-organized constituency.

The GA was formulated for a different reason than to be a representative
body.  The purpose for the GA is not one that we should be setting aside
for the gaining of other representative bodies.

|> I think Vany's view  is right.  I have though about such a GA a
|> lot.  The current GA is a poor substitute for an Individuals'
constituency (IC) ,
|> simply because all other stakeholders are represented there as well.
|> Creating a "GA-Individuals' Constituency" (GIC) guarantees both an
|> ineffective GA and a indecisive IC.
|>
|> The GA will not represent any consensus position about Individual DN
|> holders' rights, because it is in the interests of a powerful and highly
|> interested minority to keep the GA divided on such issues and maintain
the
|> status quo.

It is not the purpose of the GA to reach a consensus on Individual DN
holders' rights or on other matters unless there are actual policy or
technical matters the Board or the NC requiries input on.  The GA is not
designed to be a representative body, it is primarily a body for supplying
members to working groups and for producing reports at the request of the
NC and ICANN Board.

|> With  a chair who is partial to his own point of view, we may
|> not see a GA that comes to express its majority will at all.

That is up to the participants.

|> My own view is, that after the recognition in principle of an IC
|> (Individuals' Constituency), the GA should strive to become a
|> "Chamber of Representatives", much larger than the NC, but limited to ,
|> say,  300 members.

The GA is not designed to be a representative body.  Changing it into one
completely defeats the purpose it was created and leaves an even bigger
hole in the DNSO than not having a IDHC does.

|> A GA member will be required to
|>
|> 1. Agree with and follow the rules of decorum and civil discourse.
|> 2. (and this is of course open for debate)  prove  by endorsement that
he
|> represents at least 5 (open for debate--but the initial
|> threshold should be low) other individuals.
|>
|> The endorsement numbers of each GA "candidate" should be
|> publicly listed.
|>
|> In this way, we have created a position of  honour, service and
|> obligation for each GA member and we increase the chance that the
|> resolutions of the GA are taken more seriously, either by the NC, that
should be elected by
|> the GA and from GA members, and by the Board.

The NC represents the whole of the DNSO and I do not see that the GA should
have sole responsibility for it's formation.  I do think that the GA needs
more representation at the NC level and should have seats on it comparable
to a Constituency.  For the work and resolutions of the GA to be taken
seriously, they must be well developed and able to stand on their own
merits, then the members of the GA would need to make sure the documents
are widely read and understood.

|> My 2 cts.
|> It may be a good idea e to continue the discussion on the
|> future shape and role of the GA on the GA-review list.


Personally I do not see any advantage in corrupting the purpose behind the
GA into it being a representative body as you outline.  The purpose of the
GA is defined as:
The DNSO structure should include a General Assembly open to any individual
or entity willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO.

Your suggestion turns it into a defacto constituency even if it isn't based
on Individual Domain Holders.

The way I see the GA being effective is for it to remain with an open
membership.  Those people who do not belong to any Contituency can
contribute effort and work to the the DNSO via the GA.  Doing away with the
GA in it's current open membership form then means that the only way for
any individual to have input is for them to join a Constituency.  If an
Individuals Constituency was already fact, I would be more inclined to
agree but not at this time.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.



--
This message was passed to you via the ga-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html