[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: [ga] Message from the Chair


You wrote:
>You say you want to take action
>" to give a voice to those who are not part of any Constituency, and 
>therefore do not have any other forum for presenting their views"
>But the rules you support include a pesky little rider saying that the 
>is not a decision-making body.

The rules I support state that the GA-list is not a decision-making 
Whether the GA should or not be a decision-making body is currently 
under debate. I have the impression that under the current Bylaws very 
little decisional power is given to the GA: this is not my position, and
 if there is a consensus in the GA that we should be a decision-making 
body, the issue has to be brought forward and the scope of the decision 
of each DNSO body (NC, Constituencies, WGs, GA, ...) should be clarified
, and if necessary modified as we gain experience from the process.

>So what is the point of holding any discussions here?    Presenting
>opinions on a forum which holds no sway anywhere in ICANN's 
>structure seems like an exercise in futility.   A voice is not a vote.

It is true that a voice is not a vote, but it is still better than 
I much agreed with Stef when in the early DNSO formation days (in 
Monterrey, for instance) he was pushing forward the issue of the "voice"
 as a separated issue from the "vote".
This said, when a new structure is built it seems logical to give 
"power" in proportion of the "value" of the different bodies (political 
considerations notwithstanding). Which means that if the debate in the 
GA is limited to a couple of dozen people, including clones, and is 90% 
insisting on problems of process and not of other DNS-related issues, 
why should it have decisional authority on DNS-related issues?

IMHO, the only way we can achieve something and "count" in the ICANN 
process is actually to "do" something in the interest of the DNSO 
community, and then push it through the other instances.