Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

>     There is more participants in the DNSO that only the GA,
>     and many of them rely on their representatives to the NC.

Those "representatives" are perfectly free to participate in the GA.

There is no reason to give those lucky groups that have "constituencies" a
multiple vote and access to decisionmaking fora that are off limits to
those who can not fit into a "constituency".
 
>     The GA is essential, because it is *the* forum for DNSO
>     debate
>, where Constituencies meet another Constituencies,

Not quite, the GA it is where people meet other people not where
"constituencies meet ... constituencies".

>     But Constituencies are also essential element, and they 
>     are represented by the elected delegates in the NC.

The "constituencies" are a pre-packed, ossified choice of interest groups,
they are neither all inclusive nor non-overlapping.  Indeed, the
constituencies are rather highly biased towards commercial interests and
exclude major bodies of interested parties.

To give "constituencies" a second vote via their access to the NC forum is
not fair.

>     Some equilibrum is needed.
>     There is not "us" and "them" -- we are all together.

If that were the case, then why does the GA not have the ability to vote
for ICANN board seats?

As I see it, the GA should be the pleanry authority in the DNSO and the GA
should merely be a conduit.  However, under the current ICANN bylaws the
NC, and indirectly "the constituencies" have the ability to veto the work
of the GA and working groups, which is to me a very bad thing.

It seems to me that nothing should be sent as a DNSO proposal to the ICANN
board unless that proposal has been clearly and unambigiously approved by
those forming the GA.

		--karl--