Re: [ga] Ballot question

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

I have been away from e-mail since Thursday and
have now read the discussion thus far:
I disagree with the motion as it is.

I understand that GA members feel that the GA's
opinion does not count much in the ICANN Universe
and, maybe also considering the debate about the
At Large, this should change soon.

However, I'm afraid that this motion is a symptom,
not the cure. The idea of a 'bicameral DNSO' seems
to have been first mentioned in Roeland's post from
Thursday. We are taking an official vote on Monday,
and the implications of the proposal haven't even
been discussed thoroughly. (Does anyone remember
the Best Practices attempts?)

> 1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that DNSO dysfunctionality
> requires direct ICANN Board intervention
>
> 2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative balance by being
> placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council and creating a
> bicameral DNSO.

What does that /mean/: on equal footing? If I look
at Article VI-B, section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws
(entitled 'The Names Council'), I find responsibilities,
procedures, consensus requirements, election rights,
meeting, voting and funding procedures. What does
the General Assembly want? Does it want to have a
veto right under (d) -- determining whether a
community consensus exists? That may make sense.

> 3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat support for the
> DNSO/GA to perform its functions.

What shall the budget be used for? The motion seems
to call for a GA budget for a budget's sake.

> 4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an appropriate
> funding model to support its activities.
>
> 5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN Board (to be
> filled by a representative voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)

The NC has a procedure for "determining consensus",
and it is obviously debatable. What is the GA
procedure for "voting the recorded consensus"?
(Whether an imperative mandate conflicts with
director's duties to the corporation is a different
question.)

> 6.  The General Assembly seeks to have both an Advocate and a Consensus
> Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with budgetary control and
> responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.

Wait a minute -- what are those people doing?
How are they elected? Are they paid? What "DNSO/GA staff"?
Doing what, hired by whom and responsible to whom?
Is there no need to think this through before
voting?

> 7. The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment to the DNSO as
> originally envisaged as a place for cross-constituency dialogue and
> consensus building, and requests the Board to fulfil its obligation to
> facilitate the entry of thus far unrepresented constituencies.

I agree with 7, but I think the rest is mostly
vague and incomplete. Maybe I agree with a
proposal when it's ready, but I don't agree
with a list of overly broad demands. If it
should receive a majority and the demands are
not met, more frustration will ensue. Sorry folks,
I don't think this will work!

Best regards,
/// Alexander
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html