[ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Patrick Corliss wrote:  "Could you confirm, for example, that there are seven 
task forces and that you are the GA representative on three of them?"  This I 
can confirm. 

It was my expectation that GA members that purportedly represented the 
interest of domain name holders would have clamored to join these particular 
task forces, but it appears that these petty parliamentarians instead 
preferred to devote their time playing king of the hill and engaging in 
relentless sniping and back-stabbing rather than getting any meaningful work 
done on behalf of the registrant community... that left it up to me to 
represent the GA and registrants on these task forces in the absence of any 
articulated interest on the part of these so-called champions of domain name 
owners.

These task forces are invariably long term projects that require 
participation at several plenary sessions, participation in 
regularly-scheduled teleconferences, and hundreds of hours of work.  They 
require a commitment of time, travel and money.  Yet every time that I 
presided over a GA session and looked out into audience, I  noted that the 
"active" GA membership was never there.  Yes, they are perfectly willing to 
bitch and complain, but they are rarely prepared to participate to the same 
degree as every other constituency that has chosen to work within the ICANN 
process.   

Why is it that even the NCDNHC (that successfully operates even without an 
acknowledged Charter) always manages to get its members to ICANN sessions 
even though many are at a severe financial disadvantage, while GA members 
from wealthier nations that ostensibly represent the registrant community 
can't even bother to show up?  In my view, this is because those NCDNHC 
members are dedicated individuals and have made a commitment to the process 
even while knowing that their positions will routinely be voted down in the 
Council.  Because they have demonstrated their resolve through physical 
attendance, their minority views are, at the very least, respected.  When 
they comment on the At-Large Study report, the Board listens... 

By contrast, when the GA speaks, decision-makers pay scant attention because 
the GA has earned absolutely no respect.  It's active membership is almost 
never there to either engage or lobby the members of the Board, nor is it 
there to interact with other constituencies -- it has demonstrated no 
commitment, and it is viewed by many as nothing more than a haven for 
crackpots and malcontents.  The GA as a collectivity of individuals is not an 
organization, it is nothing more than a discussion list for DNS afficionados 
and future tyrants.  It will never become more than it currently is because 
individually its members are not prepared to make a commitment to necessary 
involvement -- even those GA members that ran for ICANN Board seats would not 
commit to actually showing up at an ICANN meeting.  

If someone in this group wants to step up to the plate and become a Task 
Force member, I will willingly give my seat to that individual.  Perhaps in 
such fashion there might actually be more than one or two people from the GA 
at the next Ghana session... but I doubt it.   It's easy to give lip-service 
to development and discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and 
participation in committees and task forces... it's entirely another matter 
to actually do the work.   

In the three years that an individuals constituency has been discussed, has 
anyone even bothered to raise the necessary funds required for participation? 
  Of course not, that would imply responsibility and a true commitment to a 
cause.    Perhaps we should just pretend that the $14,000 annual dues will 
magically appear or be graciously waived by the other constituencies that 
have conscienciously put their money up.  You can talk about restructuring as 
much as you like but there will never be a self-funded individuals 
constituency in the DNSO because there is no motivated membership, there are 
only those that use the cause of registrants to promote their own 
self-interest.

I see no hope for the GA as currently constituted and have to ask, why should 
our Board members even want to have a GA in the restuctured ICANN?  There 
will be an elected At-Large to represent the user interest.  The GA will be 
nothing more than a useless appendage in the DNSO, a structural redundancy 
that will not be needed or desired when the At-Large is established.  If the 
Board Restructuring Task Force recommends the abolition of the GA, this will 
come as no great shock to me.  

I will also not be surprised to see all of you attempt to bolt to the 
At-Large the moment that the SO is created.  Not that any of you will 
actually involve yourselves in building the At-Large, organizing its 
structure and raising the necessary revenues, that would be too much too 
ask... instead you will wait until it is handed to you as a finished product 
by the ICANN staff and the ALSC, and then proceed to gripe about it's Charter 
and everything else because bitching is all that most of you are prepared to 
contribute to the process.

It's easy to be a critic of ICANN.  It's harder to support its mission and to 
work to get things done.  Soon you will have a new Chair and Alt. Chair for 
the General Assembly... I offer them my sympathies.
--
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