RE: [ga] Organizing structure work.

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Thomas,
Not that I disagree with your approach, and it's great to see a positive
reaction to pull everybdoy together, but is the purpose of the WG to produce
one definitive DNSO restructuring proposal on the basis of a consensus of
participants in the proposed WG? Or do you think a number of mutually
exclusive proposals may be put forward, each of which could go forward
separately?

It seems to me that while you are trying to achieve the former, we have
strong indications that the DNSO constituencies have mutually exclusive
positions on several key issues, in particular relating to At Large (9 vs. 6
directors/ domain name holders vs. non-domain name holders). Over the next 6
weeks, I imagine each constituency will produce their own proposal as well
as other groups outside the DNSO, such as those who have joined the new At
Large Movement, and any AL Regional Groups that are now springing from that
(such as the New York Working Group that I am now involved in and invite all
from NY to join).

So, would it make more sense for the GA to wait a week or two until each of
these groups have formulated their own proposal, then use the GA as a
cross-staekholder platform to uncover whether a consensus is posssible, or
are you expecting all these disparate groups to duplicate their work in
multiple forums (DNSO constituency/ At Large/ GA)?

I didn't hear the webcast, so maybe I'm missing something here.

Regards,
Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Thomas
Roessler
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 1:07 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Organizing structure work.


I'm tending towards setting up kind of a WG for this topic, and
moving the substantial discussions to the ga-icann sublist.  For the
time of the structure work (which is limited to about six weeks, if
I gathered this correctly), list monitoring for this sublist would
be extremely strict, with, in particular, off-topic offenders being
removed quickly, and radically.  Concerning participants, we should
invite:

 - the GA membership, of course
 - the membership of the names council (which plans to do a lot of
   work by itself)
 - any interested parties from constituencies
 - the general public, in particular including those from NAIS and
   ALSC who care to participate.
 - general public.

We'll also need a close time line, and well defined milestones.  As
a very first suggestion, what do you folks think about the following?

 - March 15: Have terms of reference, and rules of procedure for the
   WG done. This discussion should happen on the main GA list (i.e.,
   in this thread).  Send out invitations to NC, constituencies,
   NAIS, ALSC, ALSC Forum, icann.Blog, icannwatch, Slashdot.  Alex or
   Danny: Could one of you try to extract terms of reference from
   your recollection of the NC meeting?  I was listening in on a
   horrible phone connection.  Possibly re-send invitations on March
   18 and 21.
 - March 15-22: Brain storming phase.  What could ICANN structure and
   mission look like?  It may be helpful to try going through the
   various proposals from the Aspen Institute meeting, plus the Lynn
   proposal, and to try to cough up something ourselves.  Documents
   published so far should be collected during this phase, and linked
   from a task force web site.
 - March 22-29: Identify most interesting approaches, and produce
   short descriptions of these ones, including arguments given during
   discussion. This would be the first kind of document production
   phase.  For document production, I'm _strongly_ suggesting that we
   use a blog-like document repository with comments, like the thing
   I've started doing for the whois task force.  Document formats
   should be kept simple (plain text, HTML, MS-Office or StarOffice
   without anything fancy - we don't need to repeat the document
   format conversion hell the whois task force is experiencing, due
   to my choice of StarOffice and heavy use of OLE tables).
 - March 29: Milestone 1, have a structure and skeleton of a report
   done.

At that point of time, it should be _possible_ to have a rough idea
of what proposals we may come up with, and it should also be
possible to use the subsequent weeks to refine such proposals, and
add more substance to them.

Any comments?

Also, if you have any online reference material on ICANN structure
and mission which could be relevant, please send me links.  I'll try
to set up a reference web page ASAP, where the relevant material is
linked from.

--
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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



--
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