[council] RE: [ga] Evolution - GA

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I appreciate this discussion very much and think it very useful. 

I am not supportive of making the chair of the NC the chair of the GA. I will note only one reason for now, which is the work load. :-) 




-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:ploki_xyz@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 10:29 AM
To: philip.sheppard@aim.be; council@dnso.org
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA


Philip,

First of all, I agree with your assumption.

>Assumptions (the world as it should be and may have been envisaged in the 
>current by-laws)
>All relevant and significant stakeholders should have the possibility of 
>representation in a constituency.

This should be the first point to be fixed, independently from what the GA 
is or should become.
Since the Individual Domain Name Holders are beyond any reasonable doubt a 
significant stakeholder, the opposition by NC to create this long due 
constituency in unexplainable to me.


>The GA is the rallying point for all constituencies.
>Therefore a logical conclusion is that,
>- The GA mail list and the constituency liaison list should be one and the 
>same.
>- the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and the same.

I have doubts about this.
First of all, the GA should also be an open forum, hence not restricted in 
principle, although one would expect that the core would be built around the 
participants in the constituencies.
But I can clearly see that, unless we build an "everybody else" 
constituency, there will always be the chance of having somebody that is not 
member of a constituency that subscribes to contribute. Think, for instance, 
at some people in the PSO or ASO who want to occasionally participate.
So the GA will include all constituencies, but not limited to.

Secondly, the logic of the representativity in the GA is "one individual - 
one voice", which is different from the NC/constituencies. Therefore one 
would expect a fairly different participation, the potential creation of a 
different majority on issues, all things that might express the willingness 
for a different representation. In other words, the NC Chair should have the 
consensus, or at least the majority, of the 21 (to be 24, as we agreed 
above) NC representatives from the constituencies, the GA Chair should have 
the consensus, or at least the majority, of the hundreds of individuals, 
that are unlikely to be distributed as the NC reps.

Last point, is about the use of AtLarge as a "GA succedaneum", as an "eighth 
constituency". I disagree with this for two reasons:
1. the AtLarge should include individuals that have an interest of any type 
in ICANN, but not nwecessarily in the DNSO;
2. this "catch all" will be unmanageable as a constituency, because it will 
fail to have what all other DNSO constituencies have, i.e. a "core business" 
(in the wide sense) in the DNSO. This 8th constituency, in  other words, 
will still fail to represent the Individual Domain Name Holders, because it 
would not be representative of their interests (it might in fact not being 
even composed by a majority of individuals in this condition).

So, while we agree on the assumptions, IMHO these assumptions lead to one of 
the two solutions:
1. dynamically correct the constituency structure with a mechanism to 
add/delete/modify the number of constituencies when needed (remember the 
"Paris Draft"?)
2. get rid altogether of the constituency structure and replace it with a GA 
type structure (Karl Auerbach's solution, identifiable to a certain extent 
with the BWG draft).

Of course, in case 2. the NC Chair can easily be the GA Chair.

Best regards
Roberto


>
>Why has this not happened?
>The GA mail list became a public chat list of a public who were either,
>A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by the constituencies
>or B. others who felt they were not represented by the constituencies 
>(notably individual name holders who were not businesses or non-commercial 
>organisations).
>
>Solution
>If the groups in B are relevant and significant stakeholders, get them to 
>form a constituency and participate in the NC.
>Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved challenges for 
>individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large structure to provide 
>this organisation and to elect its NC reps.
>
>Then, get all constituencies via their NC reps to vote for the DNSO chair, 
>who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float this idea safe in the 
>knowledge it won't be me.) Thoughts?
>Philip
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

--
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