Re: [ga] Proposed GA Adcom

["Sr. Francisco Fanego" <fanego@pccf.net>]

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> > But lets' back up a little.  The intention of the Bye Laws is, I believe
> > (and I had some hand in them), that the GA is the General Assembly of all
> > the Constituencies, the Names Council and any one else who wants to
> > participate to contribute effort to the DNSO.
>
> (In order to avoid going off into the weeds, I'll make my routine set of
> disclaimers that it's my feeling that the NC constituency structure is far
> from being truely representative of all who are impacted by DNS decisions.
> And that I tend to try to carry the flag on behalf of individuals.  OK,
> now that that disclaimer is out of the way... ;-)
>
> Yes, we need to reach a good working relationship between the NC and GA.
> The GA is probably going to have a rather broader foundation of interests
> (and perhaps technical knowledge) than the NC, so we want to capitalize on
> that and, indeed, encourgage it as a very valuable resource.
>
> To make that resource grow, the GA needs to have a good reason to believe
> that its choices do have weight.
>
> Treating the GA as simply a pool from which one draws people to be in
> working groups and such is to diminish the value of the GA.
>
> I personally see no harm, indeed I see great value, in having a GA that is
> a forum for both structured and unstructed discussion.  (We may even find
> our focused e-mail lists a bit more focused if we can work off some of the
> steam in advance in a more generic forum.)
>
> I originally thought "Oh no, not another layer of structure" when Nii
> Quaynor first raised the issue.
>
> But the more I thought about it the more I like the idea.  And here's why:
> It serves as a counterbalance to the NC and its seven interest groups.
>
> It may sound like a bit of new-age Zen, but there is value in having
> tension between views.  It may seem more painful or slower, but it will,
> at least I believe it will, produce better results, especially insofar as
> it builds buy-in (and hence less subsequent objection) because of the
> broader base of partipation.

Bravo!

>
> As far as the notion of constituencies go, its my own feeling that it is
> perhaps best if participation in the GA is done not wearing any
> "constituency" hats.  Most of us have multiple points of view - from our
> jobs and from our private lives - about the Internet.  We ought lean
> towards a more ecumenical GA rather than a more adversarial one.
>
> Allowing the GA to self-organize and self-regulate would, in my mind,
> promote that kind of cooperative feeling, something we sorely need.
>
> > The NC is the elected body - elected by the Constituencies - to
> > administer/manage  the affairs of the DNSO, and to act as the channel to
> > the Board.
>
> Ah, but there are many who do not feel that they have a constituency for
> their interests.  So we need to be careful not to think that the NC is
> perceived by all as being a broad-based entity.
>
>                 --karl--

--
Sr. F. Fanego, Director
Centro Planetario de Communicacion y Computacion       fanego@pccf.net
Planet Communications & Computing Facility             (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033