Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 12:59 AM 11/30/00, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:07:41PM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:
> > That is completely correct. And it is a call for a GA working group, NOT a
> > DNSO working group, and not an NC working group.

>The term "GA working group" has no defined meaning in the ICANN
>world.

You mean "it isn't in the bylaws". I don't read anything that would PREVENT 
the GA from creating a working group, and it should be obvious that once 
one was created it would have a clear meaning.

>It has no defined rules of operation, no defined structure,

That's true - and it would need some, presumably developed by the participants.

>no defined authority,

Since it would not be making policy, nor spending money, nor entering into 
legal agreements, it hardly needs any "authority" save the authority to 
develop it's positions and suggestions as mandated in the GA motion that 
would create it.

>no defined place to present its results.

It would obviously present it's results to the GA, Kent - which would then 
either approve the results and forward them on not approve them.

>You might as well call it a "WG of citizens of the Internet" -- it would 
>be just
>as meaningful, just as useful, and just as likely to have an effect.

A curious thought, and one I disagree with. A GA working group will give 
meaning to the role of the GA, and since it would be made up of GA members, 
it has the meaning of working within the DNSO and ICANN structures. It 
would be more useful than an outside effort, both as a demonstration that 
people are able to work within the structure, and as a project to help 
clarify the way the ICANN process works. The effect, obviously, will depend 
on what it actually accomplishes.

>It would be MUCH better to have it be a formal WG of the DNSO.

In many ways that's probably true, but I don't see that happening. Do you? 
On the other hand, the GA needs to clarify it's role in the DNSO. Since it 
does have members unrepresented in constituencies, it is the logical organ 
within the DNSO structure for bottom-up discussions and work of this type 
to take place. And, as Dave suggested, doing it within the GA would avoid 
the temptation of claiming it was a micromanaged setup by existing 
constituencies.

Regards,
Greg

--
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