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

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

As you may know, I attended the ICANN meetings in Stockholm and I witnessed first hand Danny
Younger represent the GA as its Chairman.  I met with Mr. Younger and I thought he did an
outstanding job at orally representing the GA with what he had to work with.  I believe that
Mr. Younger may have realized that the NC was evaluating the GA's performance and the future
of the GA.  I do not believe that Mr. Younger moved forward in representing the GA without
GA support.  I certainly do not believe Mr. Younger did anything intentional or that could
be considered not in the GA's best interest.  Furthermore, as I understand it, to represent
the GA Mr. Younger funded his trip to Stockholm himself.  I think that there is a lot of
good to be said about Mr. Younger and his contributions to the GA and ICANN processes.  I
cannot find anything wrong in Mr. Younger representing the GA.

I understand that Mr. Younger is the Chairman of the GA.  What I attempted to explain is
that the current GA organizational structure is not capable of producing valid consensus or
positions.  Mr. Younger cannot produce valid consensus for the GA's positions himself, nor
is the GA functioning at a level that can produce valid results or a valid position
concerning subject matter.  Mr. Younger has no GA motions with merit to take before the NC
for consideration.  The basis of the GA motions lack validity.

I believe that the GA here has what it takes to do it right.  What I mean by doing it right,
is that Mr. Younger cannot stand before the NC himself.  Mr. Younger needs 8 other directors
to help him, stand beside him, and represent the GA's solid positions that are based upon
verifiable information and valid consensus.  What I am presenting here are the building
blocks to a solid organization that can efficiently produce valid positions and effectively
present those positions to the NC and BoD.

Are we here to chat about ICANN related matters?  Or, are we here to produce verifiable
information and valid consensus for GA positions for the NC and eventually the BoD?  For
those here to chat, here is the hyperlink to AOL's Instant Messenger
http://www.aol.com/aim/home.html.

GA members have voted Danny Younger as Chairman and Patrick Corliss as the Alternate Chair.
I now propose that active participants here suggest 7 other individuals to represent the GA
as directors for 2 months.  I suggest we do this immediately.  Then, I propose that the 9
representatives immediately create scheduled agendas to address the following subject matter
for GA positions.

AGENDA FOR GA POSITIONS
1.  ccTLD and ccSO
2.  Alternate roots
3.  .org contract

I suggest any of the following individuals to be one of the 7 directors for the GA:

LIST OF POTENTIAL DIRECTORS
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 Greenwell
15.  Jim Fleming
16.  Sandy Harris
17.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
18.  Jeffrey Williams
19.  Ken Stubbs
20.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.

The GA could have all 9 representatives or GA Directors in place by 16 June 2001.  The GA
Agenda could be scheduled by 19 June 2001.  The GA positions for the scheduled agenda of 19
June 2001 could be posted by 25 June 2001.

The point is that the GA needs to move forward and produce valid positions in order to be
considered worthwhile.

I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Derek and all assembly members,
>
> Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>   I think you are possibly confused as to the structure and my comments
> that pertain to that structure.  This is not unusual however and I have
> seen a number of others here on this forum that are also confused
> as to the structure of the DNSO.  Our NC rep. is very effective if he
> has a set of motions to bring to the NC council.  But the DNSO GA
> has of just before Stockholm only brought two such motions to a vote
> as the CHAIR of the GA had not brought to the attention of the DNSO
> Secretary several other motions and requested a ballot be sent to the
> voting members of the GA on those motions.  That is not the fault of
> the NC rep. but rather the CHAIR of the GA.  This was essentially what
> I said in my previous post on this thread.  The ccTLD had their own constituency
> and a corresponding rep. for that constituency before Stockholm.  At
> Stockholm the ccTLD constituency or at least 31-40 members of the
> ccTLD constituency withdrew from the DNSO.  However this is not
> because the ccTLD constituency rep. was ineffective, but rather that the
> ICANN BoD had on several occasions ignored several of the votes
> that they took on several issues such as the Verisign "OptionB" contract
> and the new gTLD selection method, and the ICANN BoD voted
> contrary to the recommendation by vote of the NC on these key issues,
> in essence ignoring the consensus of the participating stakeholders
> in the current structure.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   And NC rep is not supposed to move forward any agenda but rather to develop
> and agenda in which the constituency members have a consensus on.  I agree
> that most of the constituencies are either not funded at all or under funded...
>
> >  It appears impossible to
> > determine the consensus developed through the DNSO constituency process.
>
>   Developing a consensus is a very difficult task at best.  But without taking
> a vote on motions, such as the DNSO GA members have put forward and
> went ignored or denied (one case I believe), and consensus cannot be
> determined at all on those issues.  This the problem with the DNSO GA
> presently.  And it is well documented should you care to do a review
> of the archives of this forum....
>
> >  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.
>
>   I think you again have the NC rep. confused with the DNSO GA CHAIR
> here.  The presentation was given by Danny, the DNSO GA Chair TOO
> the NC council, not the other way around.  And at that, he, Danny, the DNSO
> GA CHAIR was requested by the NC council to do so without the consensus
> of the DNSO GA members.  In addition several members, myself included,
> felt that other members should also be making a presentation to the NC
> Council as well.  But this was not allowed due to the short time allotted
> for such a presentation in Stockholm (15 mins. I believe) for other DNSO
> GA members to be afforded or granted that opportunity.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Agreed.  And that method was determined, but has yet to be followed.
> I gave a brief explanation in my previous post on this thread, as well
> as above in these comments as to how that is supposed to work.  But
> again due to the agenda's that the current Chair has of his own making and
> interest as well as the Alt chair's agenda's seeming to be taking precedence
> that process had been corrupted or otherwise not allowed to be
> executed.
>
> >  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.
>
>   I agree to a degree.  However just before Stockholm, tow motions were
> passed and presented to the ICANN BoD in Stockholm.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   This is both too complicated and would likely erupt in controversy before
> being ever adopted.  In addition to track all "9" of you proposed GA Representatives
> would be much more difficult to track than the current structure with one GA
> rep to the NC.
>
> >  Without this, the GA appears disorganized and will be non-effective at
> > presenting its position to the NC and BoD.
>
>   So YOU say.  I believe that the brief arguments I have presented,
> would tend to dismantle your argument for your proposal...
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   It takes $$ to organize effectively to move forward into getting WG's of meaningful
> weight to be established.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Very well.   I disagree with this suggestion/proposal for the reasons I have
> already stated...
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> 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