Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I think its important to ensure that the evaluation of the ERC
recommendations regarding the GA take into account the sum of  specific
recommendations rather than the specifics in isolation.

Concering the comments regarding list moderation, its my impression that the
ERC envisions an assembly with a very focused purpose. Part of this lies
with ensuring that discussion is limited to the issue(s) at hand - ie - the
work of the GNSO.

In other words, if proposals aren't tabled and focused discussion does not
ensue and recommendations aren't forthcoming then the GA *cannot* be
effective. In this context, moderation is a useful tool for ensuring that
the discourse is focused and relevant.

Some say that moderation of the list is tantamount to censorship when in
fact it is, and should be, a reasonable tool that the chair can use to
ensure that the goals of the assembly are reached.

I can't say that any of this will be easy - rules will need to be
established and likely refined, but at the end of the day, unless the output
is substantive, then the effort is wasted.

One of the points that the ERC didn't touch on adequately, IMHO, is
steering. While generalities are put forward, I would be very interested to
hear much more in the areas of intake and closure for instance.

-rwr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<ross@tucows.com>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics


>
> Hello Ross!
>
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but
also
> >provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
> >The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
> >mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide
a
> >very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
> >accomplished.
>
> The four elements in the Blueprint document are:
> -- GA mission: cross-constituency meeting place of both voting and
>    provisional constituencies
> -- GA steering: a GNSO Council member; GNSO Council responsible for GA
> -- GA working method: exchange of information and ideas, discussion,
>    resource for the creation of WGs, TFs and drafting committees.
>    No decisions, recommendations, formal positions, votes.
> -- GA communication: moderated electronic discussion lists and forums
>
> I agree that the ERC document somehow affirms the value of the GA,
> but the elements are convincing to a varying degree. I personally
> find the proposed GA working method to be consistent with the
> proposed GA mission, but the steering and the communication --
> if moderation really means pre-screening posts -- are impractical:
> Either a GA secretariat would have to be in place, doing nothing
> but screening postings, or (as Thomas demonstrated) there would
> have to be automatic filters mainly based on /persons/ which IMHO
> is a truly bad idea. In addition, one should not underestimate the
> amount of work involved in the GA. The GNSO Council members do
> their Council work beside their regular job and even that is a
> lot of work (I heard rumours of people actually taking vacation
> to get their Names Council work done!). Doing the GA as a side
> job of a side job looks like a recipe for desaster (but maybe
> that's just my power-hungry GA Alt.Chair perspective ;)).
>
> I wouldn't defend the GA's *current* state just because it's the GA.
> I believe the GA has currently not only a role as cross-constituency
> forum (and I'm very happy about every posting by someone who hasn't
> posted for a while!), it's currently the de facto individuals
> constituency, too. Such a double role is not a perfect solution
> for the future. The problem is that the Blueprint does not contain
> GNSO Council seats for an Individual constituency -- of course,
> there is currently no Individual constituency (and I hope nobody
> understands this as an invitation to re-discuss IDNO history!).
>
> I believe that if the ICANN structure follows that Blueprint,
> at least the criteria for the NomCom for the additional
> GNSO Council seats should reflect this current inbalance and the
> fact that gTLD registries, registrars, commercial, non-commercial
> domain holders and IP interests are already represented.
> Remember: In Stuart Lynn's original proposal, there was
> a GNPC seat for individual users and no seat for ISPs and
> Intellectual Property interests. Now, ISPs and IPC are back in --
> and the individuals are gone again. All the other groups mentioned
> as examples for provisional constituencies in the Blueprint are
> to *some* degree covered by existing groups: Small and large
> businesses in the Business Constituency, academics, consumer
> and civil society groups in the NCDNHC. As long as there is
> no organization which can speak for the entirety for individual
> domain holders, it would also be the NomCom's task to ensure a
> balance.
>
> With that, best greetings from Bucharest,
> /// Alexander
>
> PS: Off-topic: Let's try to build an ICANN that doesn't look
> like the monstrous Palace of Parliament across the street
> from the Bucharest Marriott -- /that/ is Stalinism (and some
> claim this is the second biggest building in the world):
>
http://www.club-t.com/seikan/romania/Tourism/Bucharest/Palace%20of%20Parliam
ent.jpg
> :)
>

--
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