Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

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

At 16:29 10/06/01 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
>If it were announced tomorrow that the Names Council had created a number of
>formal working groups to deal with the topics of:
>
>1. UDRP (Working Group G)
>2. Dot ORG (Working Group H)
>3. Roots (Working Group I)
>4. DNSO Review (Working Group J)
>5. Privacy/WHOIS (Working Group K)
>6. At-Large (Working Group L)
>
>I seriously doubt that I would be hearing the argument that these working
>groups should not have their own lists, nor would I be hearing that it would
>be preferable if all the work were conducted on the main GA list, nor would
>I be hearing that there are too many working groups and that it is too
>confusing.
>
>Instead, I would probably note a large number of participants rushing to
>become part of the process.  As long as our "management" (the Names Council)
>organizes the working groups, appoints the Chairs or Liaisons, establishes
>the Terms-of-Reference, sets the Timeline, and drafts the Conclusions, then
>we are eagerly willing to participate...
>
>but if asked to self-organize, to take our own General Assembly lists and
>turn them into research committees, the equivalent of productive working
>groups, we fail.   We have a list devoted to ROOTS that has generated over
>700 comments so far, but do we have one single substantive document that has
>emerged?  Do we have any self-organized bottoms-up leadership?  Of course
>not.  Who in their right mind would willingly want to become a target for
>the relentless abuse that has characterized this Assembly?  It is no wonder
>that calls for volunteers to head up these committees have gone unheeded.
>
>We have become so comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate to be
>constantly attacking our leadership and challenging the decisions of our
>leadership, that we fail to recognize the deleterious consequences of our
>actions.
>
>Perhaps we are not capable of effective bottoms-up self-organization,
>perhaps like other groups of individuals that have struggled for years and
>still have not be able to raise funding for their respective membership
>efforts, we are destined to remain nothing more than another chat-room for
>domain name policy (one of many).  We can certainly continue in this fashion
>for years to come, knowing that through this process those that monitor
>these lists (Vint Cerf, Stuart Lynn, Karl Auerbach and others) can get a
>sense of the public mood.  Perhaps being a "barometer" is all we are capable
>of achieving.  But I have higher hopes for this Assembly.
>
>It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which list/committee
>efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
>for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and a
>vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
>been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
>ExCom to direct list activities.
>
>The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
>longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.  One of the major issues
>that we must confront is the inevitable restructuring of ICANN.  Notes from
>the last Board meeting make it eminently clear that the ALSC will be
>providing recommendations to the ICANN Board for an overall restructuring -
>their mission has gone far beyond a mere "clean-sheet" study of the
>At-Large:
>
>"Cohen: Recall deal in Cairo that ALSC would examine structure of ICANN as a
>whole. Recommend that we consider this in Montevideo. Look for legitimacy
>and reasonableness."
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-bod-060401.html
>
>We can contribute to this effort, much like the Boston Working Group and
>others contributed to the development of ICANN's formative structure.  Our
>Alternate Chair has argued that the venue for such discussion should be on
>our GA-ICANN list, and I will accept this recommendation.  What is needed
>now, in my opinion, is a small group to organize the effort for the benefit
>of all current and future participants.
>
>As many are reticent to volunteer, I will therefore appoint the following
>people to this Organizing Committee (they are of course at liberty to
>decline such an appointment):
>
>1. Sotiris Souteropolis
>2. William Walsh
>3. Jefsey Morphin
>4. Marilyn Cade
>5. Eric Dierker
>6. Leah Gallegos
>7. Joop Teenstra
>8. Bret Fausett
>9. Joanna Lane
>
>It is my hope that this group can elect their own Chair, establish Terms-of
>Reference, Timelines, and collect sufficient background documents to rapidly
>educate those of us new to the process.  After this group finishes its
>preliminary work, the rest of us may then better participate in a formally
>structured environment.   What I hope for ultimately is a consensus-based
>report to emerge at least as thorough as the recent interim NAIS
>presentation, and supported by documented outreach to all of our
>constituencies.  The future of the General Assembly, the At-Large, and ICANN
>may well be determined by the bottoms-up collective consensus view.  I ask
>you to accept this challenge, to create a new model for participation, and
>to lead us into a new future.

Danny and GA members,

Danny Younger is an elected Chair of this Assembly, not an appointee.
A posting like the above deserves support, respect for the majority that 
elected Danny and not inane criticism.  I am dismayed at some of the 
postings that I have seen from the last 24 hours.

I also take seriously the charter of the DNSO that tells me why I am a 
member of this Assembly:
"The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a
     knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
     which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
     contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO, including
     work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft
     document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
     committees and working groups."

I'll try to be of help, if such an Organizing committee can be formed and 
other appointees are willing to accept the task. But every proposal that 
comes out of such an Organizing Committee must be subjected to a  voting 
process for endorsement or amendments by the other members of the GA.

Even Karl Auerbach, who has always been consistent in advocating 
accountability, expressed a few days ago how he saw merit in the closed 
character of the BWG (Boston Working Group).
I too, have experienced the limits of totally open efforts in organizing 
the IDNO. ("bottom-up, the final illusion" I wrote, disillusioned)

We have elected our Chair in the hope of getting things done. We should now 
close ranks behind him to make it happen.




--Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz


--
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