Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - RevisedAgenda

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > They say: "The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus
> > building process of the DNSO."  Indeed the next sentence in the
> > by-laws indicates that "the substantive work of the DNSO" shall be
> > carried out by groups other than the NC.
> 
> The NC is perfectly able to define a committee of the NC to redraft
> anything it pleases.

Right.  And the NC can't touch as much as a vowel of the result.  All the
NC can do is "manage" "the consensus building process" in which "the
substantive work of the DNSO" shall be carried out by groups other than
the NC.

In other words, the NC merely facilitates, but it does nothing
substantive.

> > Nope.  If a WG says "DNS policy is X" the NC is obliged to accept if
> > if a consensus exists among the GA.
> 
> The NC is to facilitate finding consensus in the *DNSO*, not the GA.  
> The constituencies are part of the DNSO.  A WG of the GA can propose 
> something, and the NC can charter a drafting committee from the 
> constituencies to rewrite it.  

Now that would be a clear case of the NC subverting the consensus building
process.

If the NC finds consensus, its only open avenue is to forward to the ICANN
board, not to sent it back again and again in hopes that some working
group will prove submissive.  Remember, according to the by-laws the NC
must measure "consensus" on more than its own whims and emotions.

> > > The role of this WG is to develop procedures within the bylaws, not to try
> > > to change them or change their meaning.
> > 
> > The WG's are free to interpret the by-laws and to petition ICANN's
> > board to make adjustments as necessary.
> 
> As are the constituencies.  The constituencies collectively represent 
> a very large cross-section of the Internet community -- *very* much 
> more than the GA's 130 members represent.

I'm glad you say "a very large cross-section", which cleary indicates that
there is a cross section that is not included, a cross section which by my
measure is several orders of magnitude larger than all the currently
recognized consistencies combined.

But what's your point?  That the GA is simply a worthless toy of the
constituencies and the Names Council?  Everything that you have advocated
reduces the GA to a powerless entity that nobody would join.

		--karl--