Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO
Nothing here against Joop and I can understand the Individuals' Constituency
concept, however, it appears to me that the DNSO GA is too thin within its own
current membership and agenda to support any additional constituencies. Why is
the GA supporting an Individuals' Constituency instead of moving forward to
advance the subject on its own? The Individuals' Constituency appears to be a
dinosaur already in light of the movement to restructure the ICANN SOs.
It appears to me that the problem the DNSO GA faces is that it lacks the
participation necessary to reach any valid consensus. There is a difference
between 5 or 6 participants agreeing on subject matter and valid consensus.
I can agree with Mr. Younger in that we should focus on what should be the
work-item agenda of the GA. We should take the bull by the horns here with what
we have to work with and produce constructive product for review instead of
spreading the few participants here so thin that we lose our ability to
communicate and lose our ability to develop and advance concepts.
ICANN itself appears to be signaling its willingness to restructure. Why is the
GA not taking the lead in developing and advancing working concepts.
I believe that the Individuals' Constituency concept is a bad idea at this time.
DNSGA President and Chairman
Danny Younger wrote:
> Having attended the At-Large Study Committee Outreach Meeting on 5 June, and
> having been advised that the "dynamic environment" (the announcement of the
> ccTLDs planning to withdraw from the DNSO) may prompt the ALSC to examine
> overall ICANN structural considerations (rather than solely focusing upon
> the At-Large question), I would advise the General Assembly as soon as
> possible to begin discussion of possible DNSO structural models as an
> adjunct to the work of the ALSC.
> This concern is in part motivated by recent studies posted to the ALSC that
> may impact upon the future role of the General Assembly, and which may
> affect the proposed Individuals' Constituency. One such study is "ICANN and
> the At Large Membership: Towards an 'Internet User Supporting Organisation'
> (IUSO)," Wolfgang Kleinwęchter ; it is also motivated by the need to present
> a bottoms-up view to contrast with the top-down assessment which may soon be
> provided by the ALSC.
> Through the DNSO Review we have come to better understand the
> dysfunctionality with which we must contend; it is now time to move forward
> to the next step and to begin discussions in earnest regarding the future
> restructuring of our Supporting Organization. The proper place for this
> discussion is on our ga-review list. I urge all of you to participate on
> this list, to self-organize, to establish a working committee, to arrive at
> a consensus view and to draft a summary paper for submission. The future of
> our Assembly, its role, its rights and powers (or lack thereof), may depend
> upon your efforts.
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html