[wg-review] 4. [GA] Discussion

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

Topic: General Assembly
Discussion Period: January 31 - February 3
Thread Prefix: 4. [GA]

General Assembly Questions and Preliminary responses

Ok, this is the material we have on the GA so far. I'm sorry for the delay, 
but life is sometimes like that.

As before the questions are from the NC Task Force. The responses are from 
the poll at
http://www.pollcat.com/Lite/report.asp?report=report/ty0p41u8xq_a

When posting on this topic, it would be useful to include the section 
number of the task force draft report it addresses wherever possible. 
Please help the process by staying on topic.

Generally agreed upon procedures are listed below the material and haven't 
changed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 1 - Is the GA properly defined?
Answers Received:

Yes - 0
No  - 12
Don't Know - 1

--------------------------------------------------------
Question 2 - What should be the function of the GA?
Answers Received:

To represent the masses - to give all Internet users an equal say in the 
running of the Internet.

To be a general assembly of anyone with a stake in the DNS. To elect 
members to a Names Council that makes policy recommendations to the ICANN 
Board.  To improve dialog between different constituencies of interest.

To determine DNS policy and to select board members - just like the NC.

The forum for all discussions not addressed in other parts of the 
representation structure.  This can also be the venue for keeping the 
dynamic of change active and open to maintain the ICANN as a viable enabler 
for internet development with voice from all sides (open mind, but not so 
open brains fall out)

Elect all board members.

to elect the majority of board memebers

How about a truly General Assembly?

offer an avenue of broader input from those who cannot or do not take 
advantage of the constituency or other representative 'voices'

Gather Public comment and report it to a proper representative on the NC. 
One that will take the majority's view and pass it on.

Open forum, with internal voting procedures

having the GA function in some way
-----------------------
Question 3 - Should the GA be represented on the NC?
Answers Received:

Yes - 10
No - 1
Don't Know - 1

-----------------------
Question 4 - If changes are made in the constituency structures, should the 
GA continue to exist?
Answers Received:

Yes - 11
No -  0
Don't Know - 0

-----------------------
Question 5 - If an individuals' constituency is created, should the GA 
continue to exist?
Answers Received:

Yes - 10
No - 0
Don't Know - 0
It depends - on what the constituency structure is

-----------------------
Question 6 - How can the level of participation by GA members in the GA be 
improved?
Answers Received:

Increasing public awareness of the GA.

Giving the GA the authority to elect at least 3 Names Council members

Formalized procedures

Being paid attention to when it speaks

improving training and communication

Allowing the GA to make a difference.

by giving them an effective voice

Keeping it simple.

Define clear responsibilities and powers for GA, thus giving members a 
reason to participate. Make the experience meaningful and empowered.

More information passed onto Individual Domain Holders.

Online forums rather than lists, no cost to attend GA meetings

having the GA function in some way

--------------------------
Question 7 -  How can the level of participation by constituency members in 
the GA be improved?
Answers Received:

Eliminating constituencies and thus requiring those interests to act via 
their ability to convince people of the merits of their positions.

Being paid attention to when it speaks

improving training and communication

by establishing ones that will inspire participation

Reward contributing members.

Define clear responsibilities and powers for GA, thus giving members a 
reason to participate. Make the experience meaningful and empowered.

Again more public education will get more people involved in the process.

GA being represented on NC - majority vote (effectively a double vote)

having the GA function in some way

----------------------------------------
Voluntary Rules:
Please try to observe these general and voluntary rules when posting to 
WG-Review:

1. Deal with the current content, not the person who said it, or their past 
history. Dealing in personalities destroys the foundation of consensus.

2. Ignore personality content from anyone who doesn't comply with 1. (very 
difficult to do, but utterly necessary)

3. Attempt to avoid assuming that person X is motivated by agenda Y. Ignore 
any response that attempts to tell you what someone else is REALLY doing, 
or what the REAL agenda is.

4. When replying to a message that contains both personality content and 
productive content, deal just with the productive content and delete the 
personality content from your reply.

5. Use the thread headers originally proposed by YJ when making an original 
post, with or without the grouping modification I proposed.

6. Ask ourselves before we post "Does this comment facilitate or impede the 
consensus process?" and "Is this post relevant to the thread topic?"

7. Don't cross-post to other lists.


Process:

Those members of the WG who have participated in the polls have indicated a 
desire to operate on a majority vote basis. Accordingly, nothing will be 
reported out of this group as a consensus opinion unless the specific 
question has been properly formed as a question to be answered on the basis 
of consensus and consensus has been achieved on that question. The votes of 
members for or against any question or statement will be reported out for 
each statement.

A majority of the group reject the concept of their report being labeled 
"consensus" by any other body, including the NC and Board of Directors. An 
explicit statement to this effect will be included in each report produced 
by the WG. Any attempt to claim consensus in this group that does not meet 
the standards of the previous paragraph will be challenged on behalf of the 
group by the chair and co-chair.

Formal voting on questions or positions requiring group approval will take 
place in the Voting Booth, under the administration of Mr. Joop Teernstra. 
Mr David Farrar (dpf), a member of this WG, has experience in constructing 
polls professionally, and has offered his assistance to the group in 
forming neutral statements for voting and polling. Question, positions, and 
motions to be submitted will be placed before the group for at least 48 
hours of discussion of the language before being adopted for a vote. 
Because not all members can participate in short timeframe votes, questions 
for a vote will remain open for 5 days.


Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html