[ga] RE: serious participation in ICANN processes

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Cindy Merry asked, "Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of
the General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?

For all of us a simple explanation would be of value; regretfully, nothing
is ever simple in the ICANN world.   The last few days have demonstrated
that the ICANN Board will take whatever action it perceives to be necessary
to further the interests of the Corporation, even if such action formalizes
policy changes at odds with the recommendations of the DNSO.

In the Internet world, change is always just beyond the immediate horizon,
and as ICANN changes, so too will the DNSO, the NC and the GA.  Even a
casual observer of the process will note that there have already been a
number of changes made to the ByLaws of the Corporation, and assuredly there
will be more in the months ahead.

What we require first is an understanding of where we are in the scheme of
things, in order to be better prepared to move forward to the next stage in
our evolution as an organization.

Under the terms of the current Bylaws, the General Assembly is essentially a
public meeting place for open discussion and the expression of ideas.
Jonathan Weinberg, in his "Review of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization" http://www.law.wayne.edu/weinberg/dnso_review.htm
made the following observations:

* The General Assembly labors under the handicap of having no function and
no authority. The only function given by the bylaws to the General Assembly
*as a body* is to "nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC and
approved by the Board," the DNSO members of the ICANN board. Under the Names
Council's procedures, a candidate shall be deemed nominated if he is
endorsed by at least ten members of the General Assembly. Experience has
shown this to be an inconsequential hurdle.
* Because the GA is powerless, participation in the affairs of the GA as a
body has no payoff.  Because participation has no payoff, few people
participate in the GA's discussions.  That result is inevitable so long as
the GA, as a body, has no function.
* The GA barely exists now.  To the extent that the GA is simply a label for
the set of interested persons who may volunteer from time to time to serve
on working groups, etc., then that label can surely continue to be used.  To
the extent that the GA is intended to signify an institution that has have
functions and authority *as a body* in the domain name policy making
process, no such institution currently exists.  I think that it would be
desirable if such an institution did exist but we need not worry about
abolishing something that doesn't exist today.

While I completely concur with Jonathan's assessment, where we are now is a
far cry from where the General Assembly will soon be.   The Board, by way of
resolutions recently passed in Melbourne, has signaled that change is
forthcoming:

	[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources
   to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the
   DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may result in changes
   in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.

        [Resolution 01.29] The Board encourages input related to changes
that
   improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today no later
   than April 16, 2001. Further Board action on the basis of that input
   will be scheduled at the end of that period."


There is every reasonable expectation to believe that the ByLaws of the
Corporation will again be changed to accommodate the needs of the future; we
need not be locked into the mentality that these ByLaws are a static
limitation.   In an earlier post, Prof. A. Miachael Froomkin wrote, "The
substance of the GA is that it is a debating forum whose outputs do not, so
far as I've been able to discern, have any substantial influence on ICANN
policy."  I contend that both the current substance and the current purpose
of the GA will soon be subject to a profound metamorphosis.

The General Assembly of the DNSO will have a new purpose, a purpose in part
to be shaped by the recommendations that all of us may now submit to the
Board.  This is a time to help define our own future.   If we have learned
any lesson at all in the course of the last few days, it is this - the Board
will chart its own path, but in so doing it will allow for the concerns of
its stakeholders to be addressed in some fashion, and it will include in its
formulations "a number of suggestions contained in community recommendations
and comments".

The members of this General Assembly have been given the opportunity to help
shape the coming reality.   So far, only a few have heeded this call.   It's
easy enough to sit back and be no more than a critic of the process; let's
see if we members have the strength of purpose to rise to the occasion and
actually offer constructive recommendations.   This is our opportunity to
make a positive difference.  Take it.  Act to determine the best possible
purpose for the GA.  We are the voice of the community.

Please note that the Review Working Group has welcomed all comments on this
topic and continues to seek further input.

Thank you, Cindy, for posing such a reasonable question.

Best regards,
Danny Younger






--
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