[ga] Working Group Review : Public forum

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Joanna

Thank you, Jonna, for brining this issue and it was briefly covered during
the public forum. Since the WG-Review list was gone, I am using ga list.

I briefly mentioned despite request that the Board pay attentions to
WG-Review process in Melbourne meeting, March 2001, it was shut
down in April 2001 by the NC voting decision, which I feel sorry for as
former chair of WG-Review.

Regards,
YJ
===================================================
As DNSO WG Review Chair, I would like to remind people here two years
back when the community was worried and concerned that DNSO is
dysfunctional and provided the proposals to consider. It was also delivered
to the Board as of January 15, 2001 through electromic mail as DNSO
Review WG report. It was truly bottom-up process.

However, the DNSO Review report seems not to be seriously taken by the
Board then and ERC now when the Blueprint is published just before ICANN
Buharest meeting.

The Blueprint has been raising several concerns to revisit even though some
feel it is sufficient according to GAC communique.

First, Bottom-up process

Despite its emphasis on bottom-up participation since White Paper
and upto the current Blueprint, ICANN meetings and decision-making process
have few opportunities of direct partcipation. Ironically, the ICANN
meetings
are getting managed in a observing mode ratheran than partcipatory mode
in the name of efficiency. In line with this principle, the current
Blueprint
recommendation of appointing GA chair from electing GA chair is a serious
set-back which should be reconsidered.

Second, Geographical diversity

Despite several touches about geographical diversity in the Blueprint,
it is unclear how to maintain the goal under presented proposal. The
blueprint says 2 Directors from GNSO, CNSO, ASO and 8 Directors
selected from nominating committee composed of representatives from
the various groups.

My concern comes from my experience with ICANN which is already
more than three years. The one representative from the diverse
constituency is very likely to end up with specific regions rather than the
representative from Asia, Latin America and Africe as its constituency
representatives.

ICANN must have a mechanism to ensure geographical diversity both
in the Board level and Nominating Committee. Geographical Diversity
should be taken sincerely and genuienly. Global community is not
only America, Western Europe and Pacific Countries.

Therefore, I propose the specific number for geographical allocation in
a big picture should be articulated instead of nominal rethoric.

Lastly, Geographical diversity and gTLD registries. Yesterday there
were ORG bidders who are from USA and Europe following 2000.
None of proposal could not be presented from the rest of the world
due to unclear technical entrance barrier.

Therefore, to encourage more proposals from the rest of the world,

I do urge the Board to ensure people from each region should participate
in Monitoring Task Force which will be set up to evaluate new gTLDs in a
constant manner according to the New gTLD Task Force report as token
that at least you do really care geographical diversity in reality.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: "vint cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>; "linda" <linda@icann.org>; "M.
Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>; "Andy Mueller" <andy@ccc.de>; "Karl Auerbach"
<karl@CaveBear.com>; "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM"
<apisan@servidor.unam.mx>; "General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: [ga] Right of the GA to elect Chair


>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Right of the GA to elect Chair
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:07:35 -0400
> From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> To: jcohen@shapirocohen.com
> CC: danny younger <dannyyounger@cs.com>, 'James Love'
<james.love@cptech.org>
>
> Jonathan and Jamie,
> The Right of the GA to elect its own Chair received widespread community
> support more than a year ago as part of the DNSO's Review Process. I point
> you to the record of the NC's WG-Review Group, which established around
> February 2001, by way of a Vote on a suitable Motion, prepared by Greg
> Burton, the Chair of that Working Group.
>
> This Vote came about not from some extraordinary clairvoyance of WG-Review
> Members that a Blueprint for Reform was about to abolish the concept some
18
> months later, but in response to current procedures which, as you know,
make
> the NC the responsible for confirming the appointment of Officers of the
GA.
> I believe the Bylaws state:-
>
>  > > (e) Officers of the GA shall include a chair, a co-chair, and an
> ombudsman.
>  > > Officers of the GA shall be elected annually according to the voting
>  > > procedures adopted by the GA and approved by the NC.
>
>
> Notwithstanding that I have never seen an "ombudsman" used as part of any
GA
> procedures, unequivocally, the GA has been fighting for the right to
remove
> the "adult supervision" of the NC over its own Chair selection for a
> considerable period of time, and it is only the NC's unwillingness to
> cooperate with community consensus that does not fit its narrow, special
> interest group agenda that has prevented this coming to pass already. As a
> DNSO Elected Director, I would have thought you knew all this already, so
> how come you are now insisting the GA restates its position, or that it is
> appropriate for you to ignore previously stated position, or even
translate
> community consensus as now being the opposite of what we know to be true?
>
>
> Added to this, I fail to understand how the Board can justify the
existence
> of a bottom up consensus development process if it is intent on denying
the
> GA's expressed will at every turn.
>
> If you need the URL of the Motion Results, I can dig them out, but believe
> these are included in the WG-Review Report prepared by YJ Park and
> incorporated into the NC's Final Review Report forwarded to the Board. In
> short, the Board has already been told how the GA feels about this matter
> and it is not necessary to keep asking it the same questions over and over
> again. It only creates the impression that the Board will not accept any
> answers that do not fit with its preconceived agenda.
>
> Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> Jamie: Feel free to forward to GA List where I'm currently unsubscribed if
> you see fit.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
>
> --
> 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