Re: [ga] Objective of a GA member

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:37:14 -0800, Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
wrote:

>1.    Why are you monitoring?

To keep informed about ICANN and DNSO issues.

>2.    Why do you participate?

When I think I have something worthwhile to say which may be of
interest or influence others.

>3.    What do you expect of the GA?

If nothing else it is the only official ICANN e-mail forum where any
ICANN issue can be discussed by anyone.  That is a hugely valuable
role.

It can function effectively on some issues.  I think the GA was at its
best during the Verisign contract changes debate as we had lots of
people contributing from different constituencies.

It suffers from the fact it tends to be the de facto individual's
constituency and when we do get an Individual Registrant's
constituency the GA may be better placed to focus on being the place
where all the constituencies can come together to discuss issues.

>4.    Name your four favorite GA participants.

Not sure if I would say they are favourites but Jon W and Bret Fausett
I always read and find hard to disagree with.  And even though I
rarely agree with him I always follow Kent Crispin's contributions -
one can have a good debate with Kent and explore issues.  Likewise
from Chuck Gomes. Marc Schneiders is always also a good read and there
are a few others like that.

>5.    Name your least favorite GA participants.

Wouldn't be productive to state this.

>6.    Are you in favor of the ALSC proposal?

Parts of it yes but the reduction from nine to six no and the probably
introduction of such high fees as to wipe out 95% of current members
not at all.  Less than convinced too about restricting it to domain
name admin contacts only.

>7.    Do you want an IDNH So?

I am 100% in support of an IDNH constituency in the DNSO.

>8.     Is staff doing a proper job?

In any voluntary society the staff end up being hugely influential and
important.  I know because I have been staff myself.

However in ICANN I do feel that rather too much delegated authority
exists and the Board does not drive the agenda enough.  For this I
blame the Board not the staff, who I am sure work hard in the best
interest of ICANN as they perceive it.  If the staff have too much
power it is because the Board lets them.

>9.    Is the BoD doing a proper job?

No.  Approving non existent minutes was merely a symptom of the
problem.  Approving the changes to the Verisign contracts against the
advice of the DNSO was wrong.  Allowing GAC to make policy which
over-rules the DNSO is wrong.  Allowing the staff to blackmail ccTLDs
into signing contracts (on the basis of no changes to current root
zone info) is wrong.  It is insane that the IANA database shows the
.nz manager as being located in a building it left a year or so ago
and showing the technical contract as the organisation which hasn't
been it for 18 months.

>10.    Is the NC doing a proper job?

No.  It is pretty much ignored by the Board and staff.  The NC to be
fair does seem to have got better of late and has been trying to
assert its authority in areas like excluding country names from .info
but a long way to go.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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