[ga] A motion for the GA

["Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

Roberto,

O.K. let's discuss the form of a joint motion in Yokohama.  You have professed
also to be in favour of a constituency for individuals (Domain Name holders,
that is) , and so have many others so I'm sure we can come up with a joint-
or broad-platform text.  What I'm looking for in the first instance is a GA
vote on the *principle* of adding such a constituency. 
Not for a detailed consensus proposal to be submitted to the NC. (the NC's response
is not crucial  anyway)
To finally see the numbers in the GA for the *principle*  sends already a powerful
message to the ICANN Board.
Remember, it is not the GA or even the NC (which is the other/ rival constituencies)
that has to decide about the recognition and admission to the NC of a new constituency.

It's only the ICANN Board.

Could you second a motion like this:

"I move that this General Assembly  of DNSO stakeholders send the following
resolution to the ICANN Board:

The GA of the DNSO is not convinced that the currently approved constituencies
of the DNSO adequately represent all stakeholders in the DNSO.
We are therefore in  principle in favour of the addition of another constituency,
a constituency of Individual Domain Name Holders, to the DNSO and we request
the Board to seriously consider the recognition in principle of such a constituency,
so that this constituency can then complete its self-organization in accordance
with this recognition.
In view of this same Assembly's resolution to request the Board to put the issue
on it's agenda in Santiago, we would like to request the Board to place the
issue on the agenda of its open meeting in Yokohama.

Such a message could be sent via the NC or directly.
   
Any other seconds? Would you second this, Roberto?

 --Joop--

>
>What is wrong with my proposal to discuss the issue in Yokohama, where 
>there's a specific point on the agenda, maybe take a consensus poll at 
>the GA, and trim the proposal on the list to put it down in its 
>definitive forn to NC?
>
Nothing really. Except that this is not really an issue for the NC.
Unless you take the position that *everything* produced by he GA must be vetted
by the Names Council, before the Board is allowed to see it.
Personally, I am not of that view.

>About the discussion on this list, I confess I did not see much except 
>the exchange of arguments (and ad nominem) on the IDNO as the one and 
>only representative proposal for the Individual DN Holders Constituency,
> but no effort whatsoever to broaden the consensus, to try to modify the
> original proposal to compromise on different positions, in one word, to
> progress.

That is true. We have not heard proposals for modification of the IDNO petition,
only pro- and contra arguments.
Mind you, that is how it should be. A constituency should be allowed to define
itself. That definition can be accepted or rejected by the Board. If it is rejected,
the Board should give proper reasons and indicate what changes it would wish
to see, before it would recognize the constituency as representative of a genuine
stakeholder interest.


>Without effort of this type, the only possible vote is pro or against 
>Joop.

Why? Because shooting at the messenger makes the messenger into the mesage?

 While this can be of some interest to a short number of 
>personalities in this list, it is absolutely useless to make the cause 
>of the Individual DN Holders progress, because whatever the result of 
>the vote in the GA it is obvious to me that the proposal will not pass 
>the NC.

See my above point on the relevance of the NC.

 And this not because the NC are bad guys, but because the 
>proposal of IDNO as is (or was) is clearly not a consensus proposal.
>

Only the vote will determine that.  Not the unsubstantiated objections of a
few persistent and prolific posters. 
This is the problem of all discussion lists. That is why voting is so important.

>The issue is then: how to move towards a consensus proposal? Either we 
>find out a way to do it, or we can forget about the whole issue.
>

Be patient, Roberto. Forgetting about "the whole issue" would be a mistake that
would continue to haunt the DNSO.
That said, there is now a motion on the table that can be transformed into something
that can surely win wide acceptance and give you the consensus you think you
need.
Personally I have more than once expressed the opinion that non-acceptance by
groups of stakeholders that have interests opposing those of Individual DN holders,
makes the reasons for their reps' inclusion into the NC more compelling, not
less.
The NC composition is dictated by the Board, not by co-optation.
 

 
--Joop

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