RE: [ga] Ballot question

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

Roeland --

	I agree with you that the NC is ill-serving the domain name
community.  The question is whether the alternative presented by this
motion is adequately developed.  It's not enough to say that there should
be a bicameral structure; if you want anybody outside the GA to take the
motion seriously, you need to describe what that means.  Is the idea that
the GA and NC should have to agree on all three DNSO Board members?  Or
that the NC gets two and the GA gets one?  Or what?  (Is the "Advocate"
just another name for the Board member selected by the GA, and the
"Consensus Leader" another name for the Chair?)

	One consequence of a "bicameral" system, I assume, would that both
the GA and the NC would have to agree on a policy before it could be
deemed to have consensus support.  (This would address the existing skew
in the NC structure -- though the ultimate outcome would likely be to make
formal DNSO action even more irrelevant to the ICANN policy process than
it is now, leaving real policy-making power even more firmly in the hands
of ICANN staff, who would then negotiate privately with the heavy hitters
on the NC.)  Would there be other consequences of establishing a bicameral
system -- that is, besides electing Board members and declaring consensus
-- or is that it?  What sort of budget and staff are being contemplated?  
The motion drafters would do well to list the specific, practical aspects
of the structure they have in mind (starting by listing exactly what
powers the NC has today, and how the proposed change would affect the
exercise of those powers); if they can do that, then we don't need to
argue about the "bicameral" label.

Jon


On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> 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
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com

--
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