RE: [ga] Ballot question

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Dear Roeland,

> |> I understand that GA members feel that the GA's
> |> opinion does not count much in the ICANN Universe
> |> and, maybe also considering the debate about the
> |> At Large, this should change soon.
> How? ... getting rid of the DNSO altogether or marginalizing it further?

I'm not emotionally attached to the DNSO as such. We
probably agree that ICANN decisions on domain names
currently are not "Internet community consensus" but
rather "some major stakeholders consensus". It's
probably impossible to find the /ideal/ solution, but
we should definitely strive to improve or replace it.

> I posted the real cure last January, in WG-Review. I recognise that it
> wasn't politically realistic, even when I posted it. This proposal is the
> next-best thing. After two solid years, there continue to exist large blocks
> of the disenfranchised (those without any road to a vote). You may be
> content with that.
No, I am not, see above. Unfortunately, I'm not
convinced that this proposal is politically
realistic either.

> But, most of the rest of us aren't. The DNSO has been
> broken, in this manner, from its very conception in Monterrey. Are you
> denying that?

The DNSO is broken in several ways; also from the
Board perspective, I'm sure. However, existing
constituencies are reluctant to give up what they
have gained until now, so improvements will
necessarily be piecemail: Addition of new
constituencies, some general rules preventing
the barring of applicants from joining a
constituency if it meets its criteria, limits
to membership in multiple constituencies etc.
The radical alternative is giving up the DNSO
and looking for different cleavages.

> Equal footing is equal footing, in this case, on par with the existing NC.
> The GA wants to be something other than a kaffeklatsch.

Too broad! For instance, bicameral could mean that the
GA can, with a certain majority, declare a community
NC-declared consensus void. On the assumption that
GA majority opinion and NC majority opinion conflict
about a certain issue, what is the mechanism to resolve
such a conflict?

Frankly, the GA often enough fails to show that it
is anything else than kaffeeklatsch, and proposals
to change that (such as the Best Practices) have
been drowned in discussions. Instead of proposing a
structure which enables the GA to give high quality
input, the motion simply asks for more power and money.
If ICANN Board members are unhappy about the input
quality they get from the DNSO NC, having an
unstructured GA on par simply doesn't look like the
solution.

> |> What shall the budget be used for? The motion seems
> |> to call for a GA budget for a budget's sake.
> If you had truely read the message board, other than occasional browsing,
> you would have noted much of the discussion having occured within the prior
> 30-days. The ideas presented and their implications, have been discussed for
> years.
Ouch. :)

> |> The NC has a procedure for "determining consensus",
> |> and it is obviously debatable. What is the GA
> |> procedure for "voting the recorded consensus"?
> |> (Whether an imperative mandate conflicts with
> |> director's duties to the corporation is a different
> |> question.)
>
> Many of us have no representation on the NC, period, and never have.
(Since there is no constituency for individual domain
name holders, I'm not represented on the NC either.)

> Both the NewNet memo and the MHSC demand email make that clear. Do you have
> some disagreement wih those facts? Or is it that those points are not important
> to you?
Or -- option c -- is it that the /solution/ presented
here is not practical? These points are important
to me, but I don't see how these broad ad hoc
proposals are an improvement over the proposals
previously discussed.
About New.net: It looks like the Business constituency
tries a club model approach which conflicts with the
ICANN promise of inclusiveness. The same applies when
it comes to the representation of individual domain
name holders. But this is no answer to the question
how the GA shall come to consensus decisions about
DNS recommendations to the ICANN Board in the future
without having adequate procedures.

> |> Wait a minute -- what are those people doing?
> |> How are they elected? Are they paid? What "DNSO/GA staff"?
> |> Doing what, hired by whom and responsible to whom?
> |> Is there no need to think this through before
> |> voting?
> Responsibility and hireing authority is established within this motion. They
> are plainly stated.
So the 'Advocate' and the 'Consensus Leader' are elected
volunteers which are hiring staff from the GA budget?
What is the role of the GA Chair and such an Advocate then?

> Also, the nature of the GA is heavily dependent on dynamic consensus
> polling. Further, the GA needs to keep a public record of consensus results,
> with statistical analysis capability. Right now, it's a mostly manual system
> and is not scaleable. Those capabilities have been talked to death. Other
> then a limited balloting system, we don't have anything like what the GA
> really needs to function. We have already lost one elected official due to
> workload. Such automated systems need to be put in place so we don't have to
> depend on outside donated resources, for critical infrastructure, and that
> we don't over-work our volunteers. A group of technologists, not having such
> a system, kind of blows their credibility, don't you think?

I'm sorry: This looks like a technologists' solution to a
non-technical problem -- interaction of a highly heterogenous
group. The GA's failure to deliver has little to do with workload,
and I don't think this is the reason that we have lost one
elected official. It's simply very difficult to get results if
there is not even an agreed path -- it either takes superb
leadership or, on the long run, good rules.


> Given the context, it's not vague or incomplete at all. All the evidence is
> presented within the motion and within the context of the GA and the general
> DNSO. The itemized articles are not really separable.
>
> Given that this isn't a new idea and that we've all been discussing elements
> of this for the past year, we really don't need yet more delay, don't you
> think?

It's not a question of time delay. If the majority of
the GA wants to pass such a motion quickly, it may
of course do so. But unless the GA improves the
quality of its own deliberations first, the chances
of acceptance seem rather low. Yes, this may turn
out to be a vicious circle, but it can be broken
(by hard work, willingness to compromise, good leaders
and good rules, perhaps also voluntary contributions
-- not by demanding more power and money without
having working structures in place).

Best regards,
/// Alexander
--
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