Re: [wg-review] Intake from the GA ML

[brianappleby@netscape.net]

Dear all,

Trying extra hard not to be overly cynical or paranoid, it is also a reasonable assumption that the reason for the GA, Working Groups, ... to exist is to offer a venting place for unhappy or concerned people to expel their ‘negative’ feelings and emotions.   A classic ploy, in Communist China before the Cultural Revolution, scholars and such were invited to criticize the Party and institutions of government, they were invited to participate in trying to make things better.  The real purpose was to draw potential enemies out into the open so they could be easily identified and watched or dealt with. 

We will always be more vulnerable because we are out in the open and those pulling the strings behind the scenes will always keep us guessing.   

What is currently happening here is bottom-up efforts to promote positive change.  All well and good and very, very noble.  It will also be the salvation of the governance of the Net over the long term.  The people are everyone’s constituency and the source of all power.  

But frankly, I believe what we need to stop the dike from bursting, a crisis of the short-term, is for top-down change in the form of dedicated, educated US Congressional oversight with a splash of judicial-esque judgement.  I think a permanent Congressional sub-committee needs to be established who’s primary role and responsibility is to ensure that ICANN remains faithful to the commitments it made when it was established and that the stated ideals are maintained and the goals are achieved.  

A blind man could easily see how far away ICANN has wandered from the path which was set for them.  It is possible that the US Congress might even be able to see it too?

Thoughtful Regards,
Brian Appleby
brianappleby@netscape.net

Danny Younger ada <jo-uk@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> Cindy Merry asked, "Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of
> the General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?
> 
> For all of us a simple explanation would be of value; regretfully, nothing
> is ever simple in the ICANN world.   The last few days have demonstrated
> that the ICANN Board will take whatever action it perceives to be necessary
> to further the interests of the Corporation, even if such action formalizes
> policy changes at odds with the recommendations of the DNSO.
> 
> In the Internet world, change is always just beyond the immediate horizon,
> and as ICANN changes, so too will the DNSO, the NC and the GA.  Even a
> casual observer of the process will note that there have already been a
> number of changes made to the ByLaws of the Corporation, and assuredly there
> will be more in the months ahead.
> 
> What we require first is an understanding of where we are in the scheme of
> things, in order to be better prepared to move forward to the next stage in
> our evolution as an organization.
> 
> Under the terms of the current Bylaws, the General Assembly is essentially a
> public meeting place for open discussion and the expression of ideas.
> Jonathan Weinberg, in his "Review of the Domain Name Supporting
> Organization" http://www.law.wayne.edu/weinberg/dnso_review.htm
> made the following observations:
> 
> * The General Assembly labors under the handicap of having no function and
> no authority. The only function given by the bylaws to the General Assembly
> *as a body* is to "nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC and
> approved by the Board," the DNSO members of the ICANN board. Under the Names
> Council's procedures, a candidate shall be deemed nominated if he is
> endorsed by at least ten members of the General Assembly. Experience has
> shown this to be an inconsequential hurdle.
> * Because the GA is powerless, participation in the affairs of the GA as a
> body has no payoff.  Because participation has no payoff, few people
> participate in the GA's discussions.  That result is inevitable so long as
> the GA, as a body, has no function.
> * The GA barely exists now.  To the extent that the GA is simply a label for
> the set of interested persons who may volunteer from time to time to serve
> on working groups, etc., then that label can surely continue to be used.  To
> the extent that the GA is intended to signify an institution that has have
> functions and authority *as a body* in the domain name policy making
> process, no such institution currently exists.  I think that it would be
> desirable if such an institution did exist but we need not worry about
> abolishing something that doesn't exist today.
> 
> While I completely concur with Jonathan's assessment, where we are now is a
> far cry from where the General Assembly will soon be.   The Board, by way of
> resolutions recently passed in Melbourne, has signaled that change is
> forthcoming:
> 
>     [Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources
>    to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the
>    DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may result in changes
>    in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.
> 
>         [Resolution 01.29] The Board encourages input related to changes
> that
>    improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today no later
>    than April 16, 2001. Further Board action on the basis of that input
>    will be scheduled at the end of that period."
> 
> 
> There is every reasonable expectation to believe that the ByLaws of the
> Corporation will again be changed to accommodate the needs of the future; we
> need not be locked into the mentality that these ByLaws are a static
> limitation.   In an earlier post, Prof. A. Miachael Froomkin wrote, "The
> substance of the GA is that it is a debating forum whose outputs do not, so
> far as I've been able to discern, have any substantial influence on ICANN
> policy."  I contend that both the current substance and the current purpose
> of the GA will soon be subject to a profound metamorphosis.
> 
> The General Assembly of the DNSO will have a new purpose, a purpose in part
> to be shaped by the recommendations that all of us may now submit to the
> Board.  This is a time to help define our own future.   If we have learned
> any lesson at all in the course of the last few days, it is this - the Board
> will chart its own path, but in so doing it will allow for the concerns of
> its stakeholders to be addressed in some fashion, and it will include in its
> formulations "a number of suggestions contained in community recommendations
> and comments".
> 
> The members of this General Assembly have been given the opportunity to help
> shape the coming reality.   So far, only a few have heeded this call.   It's
> easy enough to sit back and be no more than a critic of the process; let's
> see if we members have the strength of purpose to rise to the occasion and
> actually offer constructive recommendations.   This is our opportunity to
> make a positive difference.  Take it.  Act to determine the best possible
> purpose for the GA.  We are the voice of the community.
> 
> Please note that the Review Working Group has welcomed all comments on this
> topic and continues to seek further input.
> 
> Thank you, Cindy, for posing such a reasonable question.
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" 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
> 
> 
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.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