Re: [ga] Defining the General Assembly's Agenda
I agree with Mr. Williams procedural problems with the method by which the list
and the whole WG process was handled. I am not entirely certain but believe that
Mr. Younger was less than pleased when he learned the list was closed for no sound
reason, and probably very bad reasons.
I want to remind you that at the time that the WG was being so poorly treated as
to make any report therefrom questionable, those of us within that group adopted
the position that the report would stand on it's own by way of simply being a good
report. And the one submitted by the group was a good report. But I do not have
to remind this group what Karl's comments regarding the report the BoD got were,
something to the effect that it was not the report he had seen from the WG.
But as Mr. Williams and Mr. Younger have clearly pointed out all of these concepts
must be addressed by the NC if they are to do their job. As is pointed out we
have been trying to get along and work with the NC, but if the current situation
continues at some point we will need to start fighting against the NC, and/or
route around them. Many now silent participants have given up and merely wait
until that occurs.
Jeff Williams wrote:
> The DNSO Review was a private and closed ML that should have not been
> so, as you well know Danny. As such I can see at least one reason why the NC
> decided as they did. Until or unless ALL or ANY Working Groups established
> by, or at the request of, the GA members is completely open, such Working
> Groups cannot, and should not be considered legitimate.
> > The Names
> > Council appears to be threatened by the possibility that a Working Group
> > will reach consensus on how to restructure the DNSO (more specifically, they
> > are threatened by the majority opinion within the Review Working Group that
> > called for the dissolution of the Names Council constituency structure). In
> > my view this explains why, in spite of a call from the ICANN Board to have
> > the Names Council and "other sources" put forward proposals regarding a
> > possible restructuring of the DNSO (Resolution 01.28), not one substantive
> > proposal has come forth from the NC regarding the restructuring of our
> > Supporting Organization - some of our constituency representatives doubtless
> > seek to remain entrenched in their positions of power, fearing the
> > consequences of a re-organization.
> I agree with this evaluation, as do most of our [INEGroup] members, but this
> in no way makes any thus far created WG ML legitimate.
> > As an agenda item, I would see the General Assembly, one of the "other
> > sources" referred to by the Board, begin work on the restructuring proposals
> > that the Board has requested and that the Names Council has chosen to
> > ignore.
> Agreed if and only if such a WG is open to ANY and ALL interested
> parties or GA members.
> > At the heart of this issue is proper representation. At a time when the
> > Names Council has decided that those that cannot pay cannot vote, I stand in
> > favor of ousting such a callous administration. Domain name policy issues
> > must be voted upon by a body that is fully representative of the Internet
> > community. Any group that advances a proposal that threatens that precept
> > must be shown the door.
> Also agreed. We the stakeholders have already paid.
> > This leads me to my next concern, the future of our At-Large Directors. The
> > very existence of ICANN was predicated on a membership model that called for
> > a great many more At-Large Directors than we now have. The privatization of
> > the Internet moved forward because promises were made at the outset with
> > respect to full representation of the public in the ICANN structure.
> Also agreed here. But many of us have now recognized that the ICANN BoD
> has no intention of stakeholder representation in any serious way.
> > As I
> > review the questions posed by the "clean-sheet" study of the ALSC, I
> > conclude that this committee has re-opened questions that were already
> > firmly decided in 1998.
> Yes. And this is why it is an unnecessarily redundant "Study".
> > Coupled with a Budget Proposal for 2001-2002 that
> > has set aside no funds for the At-Large electoral process, I see an agenda
> > at work that seeks to further disenfranchise the public.
> Yes that that budget for elections for @large directors is exactly -0-.
> That is unexceptable and outrageous. It further proves the point that
> the ICANN BoD is not interested in Interested parties/Stakeholders
> participation and therefore disregards the White Paper and the MoU.
> Therefore I can only reasonably conclude that ICANN is in abeyance
> of it's contract with DOC.
> > As an agenda item for the GA, I would like to have the membership of this
> > Assembly engaged in the "research" permitted to us under the By-Laws, that
> > will allow us to submit our own "study" to the ALSC.
> > This General Assembly faces a choice - we can either work in harmony with
> > those that would deny rights and representation to others, or we can fight
> > for an ICANN in which representation is guaranteed to all.
> There is of course a third and forth choice. I am sure I don't need to
> spell our what those choices are...
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html