[ga] General Assembly Agenda -- more comments

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

Dear General Assembly members,

I have posed the question, "what should be the work-item agenda of the GA?".
Below are cited some of the off-list responses (in no particular order):

1. Immediate election of the missing 4 at-large directors.  Protection of
the at-large as a codified constituency that cannot be dismantled at the
whim of the board or the staff of ICANN.

2. Disbanding of the Intellectual Property Constituency as non inclusive and
not fulfilling its mandate for diverse voices.  Abuses of the UDRP and how
they can be prevented.  Support of the petitions for individual domain name
holders constituencies.

3. Further exploration of the alt root movement where this may be of impact
to the legacy root and its existing users.  at-large elections.  UDRP
problems are multiplying.  Call on ICANN to release all draft board
resolutions 21 days before meetings for informed discussions

4. The GA should remove itself from being under the thumb of the Names
Council - the NC should have no say in how the GA operates.  The GA should
have the sole power to elect board members, not the NC.  The GA is the only
open body in the DNSO, the NC is representative only of a very few limited
interests and can not, and does not, represent the Internet Community.  No
matter should pass out of the DNSO without the approval of the GA.

5. The DNSO has no teeth.  The BoD can do what they will whenever they wish.
The GA is placed in a similar role, with no teeth to bind the NC's actions
to the will of the people they are responsible to serve.  The GA is the
place where the source of true power resides .. for the long term.  The will
of the people, the Internet users and all those who depend upon it in the
future posses the rights and collective political might to change everything
is they are educated and led with enlightened vision.  In the short term,
the ICANN elite hold power.  Let them know that what they have now is not
theirs to own.  They are on borrowed time.  They still have a chance to wake
up and adjust themselves to work for the greater good for the greater
masses, but they will not have the choice for long.

6. the potential further expansion of the legacy root and how such
requirements for TLD admittance will be of impact to Internet users both now
and in the future.  For example, criteria for admittance - in and of
itself - can slant or shape the usefulness of the Internet to end users.
How it is that TLD expansion can take place without bias to the effects this
will have upon users needs to be discussed, in my opinion.  It starts with
the criteria for entry.

7. The work-item agenda should initially come from the NC or ICANN I
understand.  It is my understanding those bodies will assign to the GA
specific items for consideration and the GA would respond by forming work
groups and developing reports.  In the absence of such specific requests the
GA is free to develop its' own agenda.  Personally from observation the
agenda should include the following items in order of importance:  ICANN
Policy with regards to Other Roots.  ICANN Policy with regards to Privacy
Issues.  Internal GA List Rules and general procedures.  Internal rules of
conduct and general procedures for all constituencies and the NC.

8. most important, i feel it is essential that we finalize the development
of an individual constituency and the related methodology to insure a solid
global outreach effort.  We also need to develop a "funding" mechanism to
insure that an inordinate amount of time which could be devoted to issues is
not wasted trying to "raise $" to fund attendance at ICANN meetings. The ga
should also work towards becoming a "forum" for development of ideas and
methodologies for future ICANN activities.  Last but not least, with the
funding in place the ga could be doing much of the work that harvard has
done in the past.. (i.e. open panel discussions on critical planning &
policy issues etc)

9. I do not have a lot to add this time, maybe the only thing is needed to
be sure to include what most of the members were asking for "the views of
the individuals" since the different sectors are represented in
constituencies so the individual have only the GA to express their views.

10. I am no longer associated with the DNSO or ICANN. I consider them both
to be fraudulent organizations, and that any participation in them is a
betrayal of Internet users' rights and of democratic principles.

11. The creation and acceptance of an Individual's Constituency within the
DNSO.  The Creation of an Individual Domain Name Holder/Owner's Constituency
within the DNSO.  Determining a Legal Definition for Domain Names. Property,
Service, or what?  A resolution that ICANN work to cooperate with other Root
Systems to avoid Collisions in the future.  A rewritten UDRP and inclusion
of an appeals process for Domain Name Disputes.  Study the issues
surrounding the privacy of Whois Information. Possible creation of a
Watchdog Group to inform people of their options regarding their privacy.
Since the GA is seperate from ICANN I think the GA should work to recognize
and represent users in the other roots as well.  To push for more answers
from the technical community such as the IETF on issues surrounding new
TLDs.  To come up with alternate methods of determining who can run new
TLDs.  To push for the amendments necessary to ICANN's Bylaws so when the
DNSO recommends against something as large as the Verisign Deal, ICANN
cannot move forward with the deal anyway. We need to clarify what a bottom
up consensus is and force ICANN to adhere to it's rules.

12. It would be easier to comment and develop ideas - if there was a listing
of potential issues which all feel should fall within this area of activity.

13. Two of the most important items in my opinion continue to be the
At-Large Membership and an individual domain name constituency.  I don't
think it is enough to simply pass motions from the GA though.  I believe
that the most effective approaches would be to mobilize support beyond
participants of the GA and, in the case of the individual domain name
constituency, to begin to establish an organization that can demonstrate
global support.  As I have communicated several times in the past, I think
the act of calling on the Board or the NC to take steps to create a new
constituency will not go very far unless evidence can be presented to
demonstrate that a workable organization is in place and that the
organization is representative of a broad base of domain name users around
the world.  One further thought: in my observations of the GA, it seems like
there is an attempt to tackle too many issues at the same time.  The actual
number of participants in the GA is too small to work too many things at
once.  It might be good for the GA to narrow its major focus on one or two
important issues and try to bring some closure on those issues. The GA could
really gain some credibility in this way as well, especially if it was able
to put forward substantial contributions that were more than just rhetoric.

14. Will there be an opportunity at the GA meeting in Stockholm to discuss
developments in the At Large membership?  I think that would be an
interesting topic for the agenda there.

15. They need to work on getting the ICANN board to acknowledge the
existence of Inclusive Namespace TLDs . That, in my opinion, is the top
item.

16. I'd like to see "outreach to existing constituencies" put on the agenda.
There are a couple of constituencies that do not participate in the GA at
all, from what I can tell. This would be a more productive forum if we could
bring all the constituencies together here. That was the original purpose of
the GA, and I'd like to see if we can make that a reality.

17. I would like to see some discussion of the role of the GA.  This has not
really been a focus of list discussion and I appreciate that there may be
some difficulty raising it 'cold' at Stockholm.  However, I think this is a
fundamental issue which deserves attention over the next few months.

18. Some thoughts:  I guess there a couple of polar extremes on this issue.
On the one hand, some seem to think that the role of the GA is to provide a
forum for those who have no voice within the constituencies.  Thus the GA
operates as if it is an extra open constituency representing no particular
group of interests - except those who are unsatisfied that the
constituencies can represent them.  While the GA certainly provides an
important forum for people who, for whatever reason, do not identify with
any constituency, if this is ALL it does there is the danger that the GA may
relegate itself to becoming simply a forum for 'dissident' views - and
unable to develop any substantial level of consensus.  On the other hand,
the GA could become a real forum for cross-constituency discussion and
consensus building amongst both the constituencies and those who do not, for
any reason, identify with any of the constituencies.  If the GA were to
focus on this as its role, then it would be important for it to:  ensure
support from at least one constituency before putting any question to a
vote; and encourage each constituency to vote (as a constituency) on any
question the GA puts to a vote.  On this model, the role of the Chair could
progressively shift from that of an umpire between disputants and toward
greater focus on liaison with the different constituencies.  I for one would
welcome some discussion focused on concrete options re the future role of
the GA - and its relation with the at large membership.

19. The structure of the DNSO is certainly not adequate, and does not
perform well to-day.  Too much energy is wasted in matters of the DNSO
organization, rather than DNSO missions.

20. Financial organisation is not perfect also, as well as the ccTLD/gTLD
positioning in DNSO and ICANN.  Could this aspect be included in the agenda?

21. Actually, I got a few simple points:  Dissolution of ccTLD as a
constituency.  Barring of all past and current ccTLD office bearers (for
life) from ever holding office in any INCANN related organization.
Re-affirmation of RFC1591 as the guiding principle for the operations of
(legacy) ccTLD registries.  Confirming that those (legacy) ccTLD Registries
that registered    with Jon Postel (ie prior to his death) have a
relationship with Jon Postel's estate, in as much as IANA is concerned, and
that ICANN can only enter into this by way of bi-lateral agreements with
each Registry concerned.  Outlawing any third party interference in the
bilateral relations between each ccTLD Registry and IANA, ie the operation
of such Registry, in particular legacy Registries.  Forbidding government
involvement in the operation of the Internet, DNS, IP addressing and
protocol matters.  Immediate disbanding of the GAC, barring its past and
current members from ever using the Internet again and from communicating
with IANA and ICANN again through any means.  Introduction of an ICANN tax,
ie 1 $US annually each per domain name registered and per C class of IP
addresses assigned/allocated.  Design and Implementation of GPLed,
documented Registry/Registrar software on a linux/mysql/php/perl/tk/pdf
basis to be made available for anonymous FTP.

22. Working Group D results

23. Individual domain name holders: get some collection of potential members
happening, actively seek public interest and signups via ICANN sponsored
page, possibly collecting interested 'internet users' who don't have a
domain yet for other participation.  Funding: a concern also shared by the
NCDNHC.  From individuals to corner shop and non-profit or charities,
raising money for membership in a constituency that has a limited voice and
could be ignored all together is a limiting factor in membership.
Allocating monies from DNS registration payments is one way to fund DNSO
support functions, leaving much less expense for constituencies.  Alternate
Roots: Establishment of procedure to avoid conflict with existing alternate
roots, or recognition and endorsement (even if such endorsement is limited
to not clobbering them) of other root operators.

24. The role of DNSO GA (in relation to the constituencies).  DNSO GA
membership (membership database, clear identification of real members).
Strategy and common goals (why and how should the DNSO GA membership use
DNSO GA to achieve their goals).  Procedures (how to lift issues important
for the members either through the NC or directly to the ICANN Board).
Start working.

25. Spending funds on having the Public Forum and Board meetings
SIMULTANEOUSLY TRANSLATED into Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, Arabic
and French and TRANSLATION OF all the documents, into the above languages,
for public discussion during such meetings which are published beforehand
the ICANN meetings take place.

26. An evaluation/status of the Best Practices for the CCTLD's would be a
good start as well as an evaluation of the UDRP and/or comparative study of
all 4 dispute  providers.

27. some key questions are:  ICANN contract for services, ICANN funding
model, Liaison with ccTLDs and outreach ccTLD constituency and its evolving
role in ICANN process probably Root servers operation questions.

28. I would like to see a serious consideration of the role of the GA within
ICANN. Personally speaking, I would prefer to see the GA move towards acting
as a meta-constituency. This of course assumes however that there are
sufficient constituencies in place to appropriately address the needs of all
of ICANN's constituencies. There are currently too few voices at the table.
Perhaps a properly focused GA could make a difference here.












--
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