Re: [ga] GA representation on the Names Council

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> I've just realized (being a bit slow) that a lot of the frustration
> that has periodically filled the GA list with noise and name-calling
> is due to the perception that the NC was composed of people appointed
                ^^^^^^^^^^
> by Board-authorized constituencies..

I would call it "reality" and not merely "perception".


> So, a proposal, independent of the chair selection process or
> anything else...
> 
> (i) the NC be immediately expanded by three members.

To my mind this would not be very useful -- three votes for the "GA"
versus 19 for "the constituencies" is hardly balanced, especially when one
considers that "the constituencies" are also in the GA, thus giving them a
vote in both groups.

"Observer" status is just that, "observer".  It is otherwise powerless.
And it is redundante when one considers that *all* of ICANN is supposed to
be open to observation anyway.

The *only* answer as far as I'm concerned is to make the GA at least the
peer of the NC; that the NC's power be restricted so that it keeps its
hands out of GA procedures, processes, and nominations; and that no item
may pass out of the DNSO to the ICANN board without the positive assent of
the GA.

		--karl--