RE: [ga] Re: no matter may pass out of the DNSO without the explicit approval of the ga

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> But I have a broader question for your contemplation. ICANN is responsible
> for the technical management of three things -- not one, but three: names,
> numbers, and protocols.  I think this suggests that GA would be limiting
> it's comments/suggestions to the Names Council's work--I'm only seeking
> clarification of your comment, not commenting on it. 

The GA is a body of the DNSO only, as such its purview would be only for
matters withing the DNSO's bailiwick.

Besides the apparently meaningless job of coming up with a slate of
candidates for the NC to chose among for board seats, the only function of
the GA currently is to be a peanut gallery that the NC can ignore at its
pleasure.

The purpose of this proposal is to change that - to petition the ICANN
board to change the bylaws to correct this defect.

An alternative to this would be to propose to the ICANN board that any
group can form a "constituency" and be admitted to the Names Council with
full powers, and that, conversly, any constituency that can not
demonstrate continued adherence to some minimim degree of viability would
cease to be and fall out of the Names Council.  (This latter part is
probably a good thing in itself whether or not there is a change in the
GA.)

A third form is to follow the overall ICANN per the At-Large structure and
petition ICANN give the GA the ability to fill 1/2 of all the seats on the
Names Council.

(By-the-way, ICANN is *not* responsible for protocols themselves, but for
disputes between standards bodies over "protocol parameters".)

		--karl--