NC representatives appear non-effective - Re: [ga] DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

It may be true that we have an officially elected GA representative on the NC.
However, it appears that the GA NC representative is completely non-effective.  This
is also the claim from most of the DNSO constituencies with their own NC
representatives.  By the way, this is also the case with the ccTLD representatives.

It may be that the NC representatives appear non-effective at moving forward agenda
and subject matter on behalf of their members or constituencies because the DNSO
constituencies are not properly organized nor funded.  It appears impossible to
determine the consensus developed through the DNSO constituency process.  This causes
the NC representative's presentation, on behalf of her/his members or constituencies
to the Names Counsel and the ICANN Board, to be non-effective.

For the the GA to be effective at presenting its case to the NC and BoD, there must be
a coordinated effort within the GA that stands behind the GA's position and
recommendations.  The GA's current way of doing things appears out of focus and
uncoordinated.  Therefore, the GA has no real position nor can it make any worthwhile
recommendations under its current organizational structure.  There's nothing in the GA
process that appears valid.  The GA does not appear to have a position based upon
valid consensus.  The GA currently appears to have no agenda, whatsoever, nor
direction.

For the GA to be effective there must be an established and known working body within
the GA that stands behind the GA's positions and recommendations and drives the GA
forward.  This is why I suggested the 9 GA representatives that will stand together
for 2 months at a time hammering out GA member input for valid GA positions on subject
matter.  Without this, the GA appears disorganized and will be non-effective at
presenting its position to the NC and BoD.

With regard to investing moneys to fund the GA, I believe that the GA will first need
to show that it can develop and present valid GA positions to the NC and BoD.  To do
this it must first be better organized.

I suggest that GA active participants come to terms with reality here if they are
truly interested in moving this GA process forward.  I suggest that we begin by
choosing 9 GA representatives and give them the helm.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Derek and all assembly members,
>
>   We already have an officially elected GA representative on the NC.
> And it is much easier to track the performance of a single representative
> than your suggested "9" GA Reps.   So I am having trouble finding
> a clear cut view as to how this provides for better performance
> compliance.
>
>   Indeed this assembly needs to be improved in it's viability and
> performance.  Many good suggestions regarding putting forth motions.
> But many of those motions with seconds have gone ignored by the Chair.
> What is needed is a full time paid Chair, that can recognize what motions
> are pending and than suggest to the secretariat to ask for a ballot to vote
> on those motions.  Once that vote is completed, than the NC should be
> notified and the GA NC Representative knows where his/her constituency
> members/GA members stand on those motions passed.  This can work
> nicely, but required a diligent chair that is not interested in setting his
> or her own agenda and follows the desires and will of the GA members.
> I don't believe this has been done very diligently, due to lack of real
> interest from the chair and motivation as he is an unpaid chair...
>
> Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > Maybe what you realize is the necessity of a names council (this is what you
> > called it) type governing body for the GA itself.  What else is going to be
> > qualified to rationalize the noise in the GA forum and what else will have the
> > ability to move the forum forward efficiently through establishing GA positions
> > regarding subject matter?
> >
> > The difference in what I proposed is that the 9 GA representatives can be held
> > accountable through the open and transparent process that shows how they
> > determined their positions.  If the 9 GA representatives do not perform
> > accordingly, then the GA representatives are replaced by the active participants
> > during the GA representatives' review process.
> >
> > Another point is that I suggested that the 9 GA representatives' terms are for
> > only 2 months at a time.  This gives the GA active participants the ability to
> > review the GA representatives' performance and positions.
> >
> > It is easy to criticize, however, we also need solutions to the problems facing
> > the DNSO GA organization.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> > L Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > > Derek, you have just described the equivalent to the names council, but
> > > within the GA.  Another layer of beaurocracy.
> > >
> > > On 12 Jun 2001, at 20:20, Derek Conant wrote:
> > >
> > > > The DNSO needs to move forward, whereas, it does not appear to be making
> > > > progress.  There may be indeed hundreds of posts within this forum,
> > > > however, that does not show that the organization is anything more than a
> > > > general chat channel.
> > > >
> > > > The DNSO needs to move forward and to do this I propose the following
> > > > DNSO GA restructuring suggestions:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING
> > > > ======================
> > > >
> > > > 1.  Forget counting everyone's votes.  GA representatives should take
> > > > control over the non-active participants in this forum and move this
> > > > process forward.
> > > >
> > > > 2.  The DNSO GA should rely on the votes of 9 qualified GA
> > > > representatives that continually demonstrate their constructive
> > > > participation.  It should be easy for the active participants here to
> > > > decide who the 9 GA representatives should be, as based upon their
> > > > demonstrated, verifiable and constructive participation.
> > > >
> > > > I could begin to qualify the following individuals as GA
> > > > representatives:
> > > > 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
> > > > 10.  Roeland Meyer
> > > > 11.  David Farrar
> > > > 12.  Kent Crispin
> > > > 13.  Derek Conant
> > > > 14.  Patrick Corliss
> > > > 15.  Patrick Greenwell
> > > > 16.  Jim Fleming
> > > > 17.  Sandy Harris
> > > > 18.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> > > > 19.  Jeffrey Williams
> > > > 20.  Danny Younger
> > > > 21.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.
> > > >
> > > > 3.  The 9 qualified representatives will hold their posts for only 2
> > > > months.  1 Week before the expiration of the representative's 2 month
> > > > term, the GA active participants again vote for 9 qualified
> > > > representatives.
> > > >
> > > > 4.  The 9 GA representatives request input from GA members for GA
> > > > agenda.  The 9 GA representatives give the GA members several days to
> > > > respond, then the 9 GA representatives weigh the information contributed to
> > > > the forum and vote on the GA's position.
> > > >
> > > > 5.  GA members may suggest new material and subject matter that is
> > > > considered off topic.  However, the GA's current position and schedule must
> > > > be clearly posted and informative and the GA will schedule such new
> > > > material for consideration for the following weeks agenda.
> > > >
> > > > 6.  Regardless of the GAs current position, it must be open to new
> > > > perspectives and be flexible enough to change its position upon
> > > > constructive information.
> > > >
> > > > 7.  It should take only 1 week or less for the GA to develop or change it
> > > > position from information received within its scheduled agenda from GA
> > > > members.  It should not take several months to produce GA agenda or
> > > > positions.
> > > >
> > > > 9.  The process is open and transparent and GA members will see how the 9
> > > > GA representatives reached their conclusions.
> > > >
> > > > 8.  Only 9 people vote on GA subject matter.  I believe that the 9 GA
> > > > representatives will want the GA process to be successful and therefore
> > > > will use their best judgment in representing GA positions.
> > > >
> > > > This is the beginning of what I was trying to describe through the
> > > > DNSGA's APO concept or model at
> > > > http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> > > >
> > > > I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.
> > > >
> > > > Derek Conant
> > > > DNSGA President and Chairman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

--
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