Re: [ga] Two things troubling me with the GA Chair elections...

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

John and all DNSO'ers,

John C Klensin wrote:

> Mark,
>
> (copy to watchdog group deleted; I _know_ they are all on the GA
> list)

  Yes but some of them are sight impaired.  Maybe a Braille list should
be provided for them?  :)  Javier, would that be helpful for you?

>
>
> I'm not wild about a number of aspects of this either, starting
> with one of the underlying themes of the discussion of the last
> few weeks (random noise filtered out).   That theme is "GA as
> interest group/ constituency of its own".   For better or worse,
> the DSNO isn't designed that way.  As I've said in previous
> notes, the combination of that design and having groups in the
> GA who are clearly disenfranchised implies a problem that needs
> to be fixed, either by some appropriate readjustment of the
> constituency list or by deciding that the GA contains
> unrepresented interests after all, and contains them to the
> extent that the GA ought to be represented on the NC.

  Well John, we are represented, but we are not a constituency of the
DNSO, ergo, ICANN.  Yet as stakeholders we are SELECTIVELY
CENSORED and not allowed our "Interested Party" and guaranteed
in the White Paper, the MoU, as well as in the ICANN's own bylaws.
So, I can only conclude that such "Filtering", as you put it here, is
done in the interest of limiting participation, rather than eliminating
"Noise" ( your term, not mine).  Yet I have yet to see to date
a definition that has been agreed upon by the DNSO members
that provides for this concern.  After the fact is not legitimate,
and goes to the lack of creditability of the DNSO Admin. and the
NC itself.

> Without
> that fixed, we inevitably have a confusing situation on our
> hands.  I think your note reflects some of the confusion.

  No, there is no confusion, but confusion is being tried and trotted
out
as an excuse for misconduct by the NC and the DNSO List Admin.
It seems that you are being a bit apologetic here in their stead, as
well.
But of course I have read some of the archives indicating that you have
this habit in the recent past.

>
>
> Specifically, with regard to your two points...
>
> --On Monday, December 06, 1999 09:38 -0800 "Mark C. Langston"
> <skritch@home.com> wrote:
>
> > 1)  The NC and officers of the DNSO are being allowed to vote
> > -- something that Caroline Chicoine changed the voting
> >    procedures to allow at the very last minute.
> >    (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00173.html
> >    ).
> >...
> >    While I do believe the NC members have a right to
> >    participate in the GA, I find it improper that they be
> >    allowed to influence a decision on which they have final
> >    say.
>
> This, of course, hinges critically on whether the GA is a
> separate entity, with its own interests, etc., or whether it is
> (as designed) just the union of the various groups and actors in
> the DNSO.   If the former, you are probably correct: this would
> be in bad taste, if not actually improper and, of course, the
> whole notion of the NC picking the GA's leadership would be
> strange indeed.  Of course, many others, assuming that the GA is
> a separate body, a constituency onto itself, have made the
> latter observation repeatedly.   If the latter, it would be
> quite unreasonable to expect them, as participants in the DNSO
> generally and the GA in particular, to not have opinions.  The
> only question of propriety would arise if, by making statements
> on the GA list (i.e., by expressing their opinions, not just
> having them), they had a disproportionate influence on others.

  The latter here, which I believe is the case if the ICANN Bylaws
are to be believed and excepted, as well as the White Paper, should in
no way limit any stakeholder regardless of position be denied to express

their views or opinions.  Those opinions are their own, and may not
reflect the broader view of the General Assembly itself, as they should
be
of their own mind's, pro or con.  The NC is or should be the servant
to the General Assembly and do and exercise the General Assemblies
bidding irrespective or their own particular views.  Should they choose
not to do so I believe in the ICANN Bylaws there is a provision for
them to be removed from their positions.

>
> That just isn't an issue here, since the GA isn't voting.

  If the GA isn't voting than why hold a vote?

>  And
> it would take quite a leap to believe that the NC membership was
> more influenced by these people's opinions expressed on the GA
> list than by their opinions expressed in NC-only conversations
> (especially since it is still my impression that the majority of
> the NC are not following the GA discussions on a real-time
> basis).

  If the NC is not following the GA discussions how could they
be adequately informed of the broad sense of opinions and wishes
of the General Assembly?  And also, how could the NC than
be able to represent the Stakeholders of the General Assembly?
I would say that they could not...

>
>
> > 2) Discussions among the NC made it clear that they would not
> > be willing to accept a result in which only one or two
> >    candidates were put forth for their selection.  Yet
> >    clearly, this is what's about to happen. I find it
> >    interesting that the NC, who feared we might give them no
> >...
>
> Well, from what I've heard about those discussions and what the
> NC was willing to accept, the case they wanted to exclude
> involved the GA's tentatively nominating some people, conducting
> a selection process of its own, and then putting only the
> "winner"* forward.   At least so far, that hasn't happened: we
> got some nominations and acceptances according to the rules, the
> endorsement process is now in motion, and all of the candidates
> thus nominated by the GA are going to the NC, not some subset of
> them selected by a putative GA election (with all of the
> uncertainties about identities, etc., that implies).

  Their own rules have NOT been followed, as Jeff and others have
already
pointed out very clearly.  So, I can only say that the NC is in abeyance

of the White Paper, the MoU and the ICANN Bylaws.

>   Not an
> entirely satisfactory situation in terms of the slate of
> candidates, but not in violation of that preference/statement
> either.
>
> And, interestingly, from those of the nominees I know personally
> and extrapolation from postings on the GA list and elsewhere, it
> appears to me that you, Harald, and Roberto represent three
> different perspectives on the GA, its role, and the role of its
> chair.   That gives the NC a much wider range of options than a
> selection of several more people with views that are more
> similar to each other, which I think is A Good Thing.

  It could be a good thing if it were true and the rules were followed
and enforced.  The problem arises and has already arisen that the rules
were broken and participants were disenfranchised accordingly.

>
>
>       john
>
> * "Winner" is in quotes above because, while I really appreciate
> the willingness of the three of you to do this and the spirit of
> dedication and responsibility to the community it implies (just
> as I appreciate Elizabeth's willingness to continue as
> secretariat and list maintainer), the notion of someone actually
> _wanting_ a position like this except out of a sense of public
> service and obligation astounds me... and causes me to
> appreciate your willingness all the more.

  O yes, of course.   I don't think so here John...

Bob Davis...

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html