[ga-rules] Organizing committee

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Organizing Committee - Agenda and Timelines

Large organizations involved in creative work set seasonal deadlines for
accepting proposals from independent parties. These rounds determine the
allocation of resources, technical and administrative support and more or
less guarantee a constant supply of new work with high production values.

Without submission rounds, life is a free for all, with decision makers
never knowing when something substantive will be presented, if ever. The
market is known for its veracious appetite, but not for its ability to
discriminate between quantity and quality. This situation creates a very
real temptation to approve mediocre, ill-considered work, provided that an
established name is attached to it. The reality is that restrictive
practices are the lowest short-term risk.

To my way of thinking, that is not dissimilar to the current situation in
which ICANN claims that progress is being made in the best interests of the
general public, at the same time, acting upon initiatives to fill gaps,
presented at the last minute by selected entities with whom they already
have an established relationship. It's all to easy to justify shortcuts in
the present climate.

One fundamental problem facing the GA is how to encourage ICANN to put large
and small independent players on the same level field without adversely
affecting the stability created by the big players that ICANN has come to
rely upon.

It is my personal opinion that the GA cannot possibly be expected to succeed
without a more organized set of procedures in place; procedures that would
not be a rigid structure, but would establish a rolling agenda to ensure a
regular flow of innovative ideas founded in solid research.

The GA should be be sending out formal invitations with set deadlines for
the submission of proposals, then select a shortlist to embrace fully and
develop, while cutting off new submissions until the next round. This would
encourage diversity of input from all players, large and small, while
creating anticipation at BoD level that something of value will be
forthcoming from the GA on a particular issue at a specific moment in time.

Currently, a perfectly sensible proposal may be met with a negative response
on the list, simply for reasons of being perceived as a distraction to a
more urgent topic, leading to resentment by the author and their persistent
drum beating on the various lists. This can be intolerable for all parties.
The answer is simple. Use formal submission rounds, allowing for
resubmission at agreed times, time for the author to hone proposals off-list
in the intervening period, and a mechanism that gives notice of issues to be
addressed in this round in a timely fashion.

I witness Danny and the BoD attempting this kind of structure, using
resolutions and referrals and deadlines attached to the quarterly meetings,
but I don't see a positive response within the GA for any kind of formal
working method. Attempts to organize the GA, whether individually by the
Chair/ Alt Chair, or collectively through sub-lists, or an Organizing
Committee, is viewed as restrictive practices, limiting freedom of speech,
to be derided and shot down in flames. The price that is being paid for that
strategy, is being ignored by the decision makers and even worse, by
default, actively encouraging the ICANN to increase the stranglehold of the
big players whose own procedures can be relied upon to deliver the goods.
This is a far greater cost than whatever may result from a few short-term,
self-imposed restrictions, that could transform the GA into a body that
cannot be ignored by ICANN.

The free speech advocates and loudest voices in the GA decry the sub-lists
as being divisive. It's worth noting that Stuart Lynn has been personally
involved in the dialogue on the ga-roots list, something that to my
knowledge has not occurred on the ga-full list. There is the evidence that a
little self-organization can go a long way.


What we need most in the current climate can be undertaken by an organizing
committee appointed by the Chairs. It is not a policy matter requiring
consensus. A rolling agenda set by the committee does not remove a member's
right to submit any proposal for consideration in any form at any time,
either to the full GA, the NC or the BoD direct, but it should be made clear
that if a document is not submitted by a certain set date, it would be
deferred to the next round, as the GA would then be fully committed
elsewhere.

Those who would argue against submission rounds and an organizing committee
to flag the timeline should include with their response an answer to each of
the following questions:-

1) What are the key issues facing the GA at this time?
2) What has the GA achieved since Stockholm?
3) What will the GA accomplish before Uruguay and how will this be achieved?

Regards,
Joanna


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