Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

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

Proposed amendments and comment:

At 13:06 30/09/01 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:


>Members of the General Assembly are committed to the mission of ICANN and
>have actively participated in discussions regarding its future
>reorganization.

"Most members"


>  This involvement has manifested itself through contributions
>to the At-Large Study Committee Forum, dialogue on the General Assembly
>lists, participation in ALSC Outreach sessions, discussion at plenary
>sessions, and involvement in the independent efforts of groups such as NAIS
>and the Interim Coordinating Committee.
>
>We believe that in view of the clearly-documented community consensus, the
>At-Large Study Committee will re-assess its preliminary conclusions, and will
>re-visit its decision to break our compact with the US government and elect
>less than the requisite number of At-Large Directors promised.

"We believe that in view of the clearly-documented community consensus the 
At-Large Study Committee must re-assess its preliminary conclusions, and 
must continue to be guided by the  principle agreed with the DoC, that half 
of the Board be elected by at large members. "


>In principle, we support a reorganization of ICANN along functional lines,
>and see merit in a structure that enables participation for users, providers,
>and developers.  Once the user community is invested with a participatory
>structure and begins the process of electing its nine representative
>Directors to the ICANN Board, it will be necessary to assess the proper
>distribution of remaining Board seats.

"Only once the at large directors are seated, can the proper distribution 
of the remaining Board seats be addressed."


>We agree with the assessment of the ALSC that the ASO and PSO, in general,
>seem to be functioning well, and submit that there would be no apparent
>justification for any changes either in their structure or in their degree of
>representation on the Board.
This needs debate.

>At issue is the disposition of the three remaining Board seats.  As we
>support the concept of a Supporting Organization for Providers, the
>implication is clear - the DNSO, which to date has aptly been characterized
>as dysfunctional, must be decommissioned.

This needs debate too.  Personally, I agree with you that it's probably 
inevitable.
In a way, it means and end to ICANN-as-we-know-it  as well. The DNSO was 
constructed as its "consensus" centrepiece. If it goes, a whole new 
architecture is needed.
Everybody in the corridors in Montevideo was already discussing that.

>While it can be expected that those constituencies that have entered into
>contractual relationships with ICANN (the gTLDs, the ccTLDs, and the
>registrars), will form the Provider Supporting Organization, it is evident
>that such a restructuring raises questions as to the means for continued
>participation by others that have been loyal to the ICANN mission.
>
>The General Assembly believes than no constituent element in the ICANN
>process should be disenfranchised in this restructuring.
>
>Accordingly, we propose to the ICANN Board that the concept of the Open
>Public Forum, the General Assembly, wherein all constituent groups may have a
>voice and an opportunity to substantively address mutual concerns, be
>retained.

Frankly, if this GA-of -the-SO's that you propose is going to be of any 
use, ICANN Bylaws will have to be written, that give this body powers to 
elect a mezzanine advisory council. (a la the Names Council but then a 
really functioning one).
This must happen before this GA can gain credibility. (chicken/egg)

>The General Assembly will provide a venue for cross-SO dialogue, thereby
>preserving the consensus-building efforts that are the cornerstone of the
>ICANN process.

yes. Fuzzy enough for everybody to agree with.
Too bad that the reality of the last 3 years has been so different.

>We encourage the ICANN Board to direct the Names Council to "wrap up its
>affairs" and to pass the mantle of leadership to the General Assembly.

  (this will be welcomed with Homeric laughter)

>  The
>Assembly will facilitate this transition by undertaking those committee and
>task force projects started by the Council, and will bring them to conclusion
>in a thoughtful and timely fashion.

In principle I would support such a move, one that would bring back the 
Working Groups, but once again, can such WG's get moral authority and an 
incentive to do the work, when nobody gives them (top down) real authority?


--Joop

--
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