Re: [ga] Organizing Committee

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Roberto

> What Organizing Committee?!?

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:29:19 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Subject: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

> 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.


--
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