Re: [wg-review] 4. [GA] Comments

[Derek Conant - DNSGA <dconant@dnsga.org>]

A *ship* is a large oceangoing vessel.  The Mayflower was a ship.

My point is that if this WG is not sophisticated enough to understand that the
GA must have certain representatives who are willing to be accountable for the
record and direction of the GA, then a rudder will not help it.

A ship with a rudder that is under powered may not be able to overcome the
current or navigate clear of the reefs.

Derek Conant


Joanna Lane wrote:

> A ship has an engine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Derek Conant - DNSGA
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:22 PM
> To: Eric Dierker
> Cc: Greg Burton; wg Review list
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 4. [GA] Comments
>
> A ship with a rudder and with no wind in its sails can also be considered
> drifting.
>
> Derek Conant
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > The GA is currently a rudderles ship.
> > It appears from much research that most of the necessary elements are in
> place
> > they are just in the wrong locations and not synthesized.  One good chair
> can fix
> > all of these problems.  And should make the recomendations to the NC to do
> so.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Greg Burton wrote:
> >
> > > This apparently hasn't gone through on two previous tries....trying
> again.
> > > Apologies if you got it already. G
> > >
> > > Dear WG members and GA members,
> > >
> > > I'd like your comments on this before posting it to the TF review report
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Greg
> > > working chair, WG-Review
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Comments on Section D, General Assembly
> > >
> > > Text:
> > > -------
> > > While the GA has extensive membership [GET EXACT NUMBERS]
> > > -------
> > > Comment: As of Mon 29 January 2001, 271 persons are registered in the
> > > DNSO GA voting registry. Source:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
> > >
> > > Text:
> > > -------
> > > it appears to be handicapped by having no little participation or
> authority.
> > > -------
> > > Comments:
> > >
> > > 1. "no little" should be replaced with "little" - this appears to be a
> typo.
> > > It would probably be more accurate to say that GA participation is
> sporadic,
> > > depending on circumstances.
> > >
> > > 2. Thirteen WG-Review members responded to a poll on the Task Force
> question
> > > "Is the GA properly defined?" Twelve answered "no", and one didn't know.
> > > This perceived lack of definition probably contributes to both the
> > > participation and authority issues. A better definition of the GA will
> > > probably require changes to the ICANN bylaws.
> > >
> > > 3. The GA as a group appears to lack any authority whatsoever. It has no
> > > mandated abilities beyond nominating ICANN BoD members.
> > >
> > > Text:
> > > -------
> > > How to address the current structural problems to enhance the GA within
> > > the DNSO has received much discussion, and should be further addressed.
> > > -------
> > > Comments:
> > > ***
> > > 1. The ICANN Bylaws state that "the NC shall elect the Chairman of the
> GA
> > > annually."
> > >
> > > As of February 1, 2001 the General Assembly lacks a chair, as Mr Roberto
> > > Gaetano's term has expired. Mr. Gaetano brought this issue up in
> November
> > > 2000 at the Marina Del Rey meetings, well in advance of this
> circumstance.
> > > Mr Gaetano indicated at that time that he would be willing to continue
> for
> > > a few months, and recommended that the bylaws be amended to allow direct
> > > vote for the GA chair by the GA itself. On January 30, 2001, Mr Gaetano
> > > wrote to the GA (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00087.html):
> > >
> > > "...I have the impression that nothing moves, and that therefore we may
> found
> > > ourselves at the next meeting at more or less the same point."
> > >
> > > At this point in time, 10 weeeks later, it does not appear that the NC
> has
> > > yet placed this item on it's agenda, or had substantive discussions on
> the
> > > NC council list.
> > > (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010208.NCtelecon-agenda.html) Unless
> this
> > > is addressed at the regularly-scheduled Names Council teleconference on
> > > February 26, Mr Gaetano's statement appears correct. It should also be
> noted
> > > that the NC has been unable to address all of it's agenda items in the
> > > timeframe allocated to these items, and simply placing it on the agenda
> does
> > > not mean that it will be dealt with promptly.
> > >
> > > The NC may be waiting for nominations from the GA in order to have
> > > candidates acceptable to the GA, and this would be desirable. The NC is
> not
> > > currently constrained to do so, however.
> > >
> > > RECOMMENDATION: The NC should elect the GA chair as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > RECOMMENDATION: The NC should recommend to the ICANN Board of Directors
> that
> > > the bylaws be amended by replacing "the NC shall elect the Chairman of
> the GA
> > > annually." with "the GA shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually
> > > according to the voting procedures adopted by the GA".
> > > ***
> > > 2. On the Task Force question "Should the GA be represented on the NC?",
> > > WG-Review poll respondents answered 10 yes, 1 no, 1 don't know.
> > >
> > > RECOMMENDATION: The NC should recommend to the ICANN Board of Directors
> that
> > > the bylaws be changed to allow GA representation on the NC by amending
> > > Article VI-B Section 2 (a) to read:
> > >
> > > "The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance with
> > > Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency recognized by the
> Board
> > > pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article, and
> three
> > > members elected by the General Assembly according to the voting
> procedures
> > > adopted by the GA."
> > > ***
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > More comments will be forthcoming.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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

--
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