[nc-review] Report from the GA

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

This is a short summary of the recent debate in the GA.
I am reporting all contributions: please be aware that some point have only
be addressed by one or two individuals, and cannot be assumed to be the
opinion of a large part of the GA, not to even speak about consensus
position.
The only general agreement, as reported below, is the need for a Working
Group, open to everybody, that has in its agenda the creation of a
Constituency for individuals.

Best regards
Roberto

==================================

Constituency structure
----------------------

Some people have expressed concerns at the Constituency structure
altogether.

Others, while they consider that there are at the moment no practical
alternatives to the Constituency structure, propose some modifications.
Proposal include:
- the reformulation of the Constituencies, aggregating the present groups in
fewer categories;
- to improve the representativity (some groups are underrepresented, some
overrepresented, some misrepresented);
- to define better the balance of power between groups (i.e. not to allow
one "alliance" among some Constituencies to rule);
- to allow dynamic rules as, for instance, some provisions in the Paris
Draft.


Individuals
-----------

A special case is a Constituency for Individuals.
There is rough consensus that such a constituency should be added, but there
is divergence of opinions on whether:
- the Constituency should be limited to Individual Domain Name Holders or
have a wider charter;
- is IDNO the core of the Individual Constituency, or should other groups
join in;
The issue of ICANN having not responded to the IDNO proposal for
Constituency has been raised.


Other issues
------------

It has been noticed that DNSO is in a peculiar situation, because the other
Supporting Organization had already existing working structures (IETF,
RIRs).
The relationship between DNSO and AtLarge has to be defined (but this
concerns probably only - or primarily - the GA).
The consensus building mechanism seems to need improvement. Suggestions
include:
- let the GA discuss of the results of the WGs before forwarding them to the
NC;
- improve the debate in the GA (common discussion point among
Constituencies).


Conclusion
----------

There seem to be consensus for a WG to start, addressing at least the point
of creating a Constituency for individuals.
Other points raised are more controversial, and should be addressed by the
Working Group.