RE: [ga] Ballot question

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:sandy@storm.ca]
|> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:56 AM
|> 
|> DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
|> > 
|> > In accordance with the rules and procedures of the 
|> > General Assembly,
|> 
|> Where are those posted?
|> 
|> > a motion has been put forth, ...
|> 
|> > Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organization 
|> > Formation Concepts (adopted by the ICANN Board 
|> > March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN Board should
|> > periodically review the status of the constituency 
|> > groups to determine whether all DNSO interests are 
|> > adequately represented"
|> > 
|> > Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly 
|> > expressed their concern that the DNSO as currently 
|> > constituted is not sufficiently representative
|> > 
|> > Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not 
|> > been remedied internally, and efforts undertaken by 
|> > the Names Council have failed to sufficiently address 
|> > these concerns
|> > 
|> > It is therefore
|> > 
|> > RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:
|> > 
|> > 1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that 
|> >     DNSO dysfunctionality requires direct ICANN 
|> >     Board intervention
|> 
|> So far, so good.

Actually, I thought that Danny was very diplomatic. IMHO, the NC has done
nothing but exacerbate the situation. Also, the NC doesn't represent all of
us, are you arguing that it doesn't need to?

|> > 2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish 
|> >     a representative balance by being placed 
|> >     on equal footing with the current DNSO 
|> >     Names Council and creating a bicameral DNSO.
|> 
|> Nonsense. The GA is a forum for discussion, the 
|> NC an executive body. They cannot and should not 
|> be on a "equal footing".

IOW, you think that the GA should be nothing other than a kaffeeklatsch. I
hope that you don't mind if I disagree, vehemently? The question that brings
up is "Why is the GA there?" or more accuratly "Why should anyone waste time
participating?". This also speaks against all organizational theory.
Specifically, a discussion group that has no visible purpose, or impact,
quickly devolves to mundane discussions. After all, none of ithe discussions
matter. Therefore, why worry about decorum and how can it focus on anything?
If it thus lacks focus, why should any of the participants remain and what
good is any consensus one may derive from such a group?

|> The NC should pay more attention to GA discussion, and it 
|> might be worth talking about re-structuring the NC to give 
|> more input from users, but it is pointless to suggest 
|> some second complex structure on an "equal footing".

The three most useless words, in the english language, are "could",
"should", and "would". Do you know why? Because, they are all words of
disempowerment. They either disempower the speaker, or those they are being
used against. Implicit in their use is the feeling of powerlessness...an
accession to things that can/may/will not change. They have long ago
acknowleged what they "should" do, but that pesky word allows them to NOT do
it and they don't do it. Any organization that has an option of not doing
something that takes effort, will take that option. The NC is no different.
The NC has become a road-block to those not respresented in the NC
constituency structure (those they "have" to listen to, as opposed to those
they "should" listen to). The track-record shows that the NC does not and
will not listen to any, but the BoD and it's constituent members, period.
This is regardless of what they "should" do. As I stated in Jan01, I'd like
to do away with the present constituency structure altogether. I don't
believe that, politically, can happen. Thus, failing to remove the
road-block, this routes around the road-block. 

|> The real issue for balanced representation is whether we get 
|> nine At Large board members actually seated. The GA is 
|> essentially irrelevant to this, except that we might see 
|> some campaign discussion in the GA forum.

Bottom-line; the GA is irrelevant to ALL of it because the GA has no impact
anywhere! BoD member campaigns have hardly touched the GA lists. This is
what we intend to change with this motion. You forget that the DNSO has BoD
seats already. What this motion addresses is making the DNSO BoD seats more
accountable to domain name holders, in general. As constituted, the NC is
not accountable to all domain name holders, period, and ONLY the NC can
elect/appoint the DNSO BoD seat. Does that representative bother to keep the
GA informed about the goings-on of the ICANN BoD? No, he doesn't. Does he
keep the NC informed? Yes, he does. Does even the NC keep the GA informed?
No, they don't. Do the NC members keep their constituents informed? Yes,
they do. The salient realization is that the constituencies Do NOT represent
all the domain name holders. MHSC is only one such non-represented member
and New.Net is another, the general domain name holder population
(individual domain name holders) are a huge bunch more. By default, we are
all in the GA, which has no vote at all and therefore are
disempowered/disenfranchised. These very facts make a lie of ICANN
inclusiveness and consensus claims and declarations. As presently
constituted, the GA is a sham constituency.

|> Of course if we ever get a properly constituted board, it 
|> might choose to fix some things, perhaps including the 
|> NC and constituency structure. We might even see the 
|> appointed Task Forces replaced by open-to-anyone 
|> Working Groups.

Whilst you may be involved in the ALSO formation movement, MHSC is not and
for very good reason. The AtLarge consists of end-user/consumers. While MHSC
caters to them, it is not them. By definition, that is true for every domain
name holder (DNH) extant. Every DNH provides information or services from
their domain. Consumer needs are not provider needs, even if the provider
may also be a consumer. This was recognized in the very begining (Green
Paper) and no one has ever doubted that (political mechinations not with
standing).

|> > 3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat 
|> >     support for the DNSO/GA to perform its functions.
|> > 
|> > 4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop 
|> >     an appropriate funding model to support its activities.
|> > 
|> > 5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN 
|> >     Board (to be filled by a representative voting the 
|> >     recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)
|> > 
|> > 6.  The General Assembly seeks to have both an Advocate 
|> >     and a Consensus Leader, both elected positions of the 
|> >     DNSO/GA with budgetary control and responsibility for 
|> >     all DNSO/GA staff.
|> 
|> Once you start imagining the GA as one chamber of some sort 
|> of bicameral structure, it needs budget, leaders, Board reps, ... No!

Yes, for all of the reasons I have stated above. Do you have something other
than an emotional reaction to this?

|> The budget would be a waste. All the GA needs to perform its actual 
|> function as an open discussion forum is a mailing list and 
|> an archive thereof.

If this is what is decided then the GA should die and a similar fate should
befall the ALSO.

|> We don't need leaders. We need facilitators, people who 
|> can help extract a consensus from the mess of disagreements, 
|> personal agendas, ...

|> We don't need a GA Board rep. We need nine openly elected At 
|> Large members.

Excuse me, we are talking about DNSO board reps that already exist. We are
talking about making existing reps more accountable. DNSO != ALSO. I suggest
that you remember where you are.

|> We don't need a bicameral structure. We need an NC that does its job.

see above. I believe that the NC is doing it's job. It is simply not the job
it "should" (there's that pesky word again) be doing. As constituted, there
is no way to alter the behavior of the NC, therefore the only recourse
remaining is to route around the NC. I suggest that you go thorough the
DNSO/WG-Review archives.

|> > 7.  The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment to 
|> >     the DNSO as originally envisaged as a place for 
|> >     cross-constituency dialogue and consensus building, and 
|> >     requests the Board to fulfil its obligation to facilitate 
|> >     the entry of thus far unrepresented constituencies.
|> > 
|> > [     ]  Agree
|> > [  !  ]  Disagree

--
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