RE: [ga] Ballot question

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Dear Alexander,

You need to read back a lot farther than Thursday. Some of this stuff has
been continuously debated since before last year. None of this is new.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:alexander@svensson.de]
|> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:00 PM
|> 
|> 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.

How? ... getting rid of the DNSO altogether or marginalizing it further?

|> 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?)

I posted the real cure last January, in WG-Review. I recognise that it
wasn't politically realistic, even when I posted it. This proposal is the
next-best thing. After two solid years, there continue to exist large blocks
of the disenfranchised (those without any road to a vote). You may be
content with that. But, most of the rest of us aren't. The DNSO has been
broken, in this manner, from its very conception in Monterrey. Are you
denying that? After two years of failed promises, by ICAN and the Names
Council, it is patently obvious, even to the most stubborn of dunderheads,
that it isn't going to get fixed and that the major problem is the NC
itself. It remains to be seen if the ICANN BoD will be part of the solution
or add to the problem.

|> > 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.

Equal footing is equal footing, in this case, on par with the existing NC.
The GA wants to be something other than a kaffeklatsch.

|> > 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.

If you had truely read the message board, other than occasional browsing,
you would have noted much of the discussion having occured within the prior
30-days. The ideas presented and their implications, have been discussed for
years.

|> > 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.)

Many of us have no representation on the NC, period, and never have. Both
the NewNet memo and the MHSC demand email make that clear. Do you have some
disagreement wih those facts? Or is it that those points are not important
to you? IMHO, adequate proof of those allegations has already been
presented, repeatedly.

|> > 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?

Responsibility and hireing authority is established within this motion. They
are plainly stated. As to what they are doing, some of them would be the
Secretariat and others would include various support structure
administration, which the DNSO has been sorely lacking. Where were you when
the budget discussions were occuring, on vacation? If so, please bring
yourself back up to speed.

Also, the nature of the GA is heavily dependent on dynamic consensus
polling. Further, the GA needs to keep a public record of consensus results,
with statistical analysis capability. Right now, it's a mostly manual system
and is not scaleable. Those capabilities have been talked to death. Other
then a limited balloting system, we don't have anything like what the GA
really needs to function. We have already lost one elected official due to
workload. Such automated systems need to be put in place so we don't have to
depend on outside donated resources, for critical infrastructure, and that
we don't over-work our volunteers. A group of technologists, not having such
a system, kind of blows their credibility, don't you think?

|> > 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!

Given the context, it's not vague or incomplete at all. All the evidence is
presented within the motion and within the context of the GA and the general
DNSO. The itemized articles are not really separable.

Given that this isn't a new idea and that we've all been discussing elements
of this for the past year, we really don't need yet more delay, don't you
think?
--
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