Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Ross!

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but also
>provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
>The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
>mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide a
>very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
>accomplished.

The four elements in the Blueprint document are:
-- GA mission: cross-constituency meeting place of both voting and 
   provisional constituencies
-- GA steering: a GNSO Council member; GNSO Council responsible for GA
-- GA working method: exchange of information and ideas, discussion, 
   resource for the creation of WGs, TFs and drafting committees.
   No decisions, recommendations, formal positions, votes.
-- GA communication: moderated electronic discussion lists and forums

I agree that the ERC document somehow affirms the value of the GA,
but the elements are convincing to a varying degree. I personally
find the proposed GA working method to be consistent with the
proposed GA mission, but the steering and the communication --
if moderation really means pre-screening posts -- are impractical:
Either a GA secretariat would have to be in place, doing nothing
but screening postings, or (as Thomas demonstrated) there would
have to be automatic filters mainly based on /persons/ which IMHO
is a truly bad idea. In addition, one should not underestimate the 
amount of work involved in the GA. The GNSO Council members do 
their Council work beside their regular job and even that is a
lot of work (I heard rumours of people actually taking vacation
to get their Names Council work done!). Doing the GA as a side
job of a side job looks like a recipe for desaster (but maybe
that's just my power-hungry GA Alt.Chair perspective ;)).

I wouldn't defend the GA's *current* state just because it's the GA.
I believe the GA has currently not only a role as cross-constituency 
forum (and I'm very happy about every posting by someone who hasn't 
posted for a while!), it's currently the de facto individuals 
constituency, too. Such a double role is not a perfect solution 
for the future. The problem is that the Blueprint does not contain 
GNSO Council seats for an Individual constituency -- of course, 
there is currently no Individual constituency (and I hope nobody 
understands this as an invitation to re-discuss IDNO history!). 

I believe that if the ICANN structure follows that Blueprint, 
at least the criteria for the NomCom for the additional 
GNSO Council seats should reflect this current inbalance and the 
fact that gTLD registries, registrars, commercial, non-commercial
domain holders and IP interests are already represented.
Remember: In Stuart Lynn's original proposal, there was
a GNPC seat for individual users and no seat for ISPs and
Intellectual Property interests. Now, ISPs and IPC are back in --
and the individuals are gone again. All the other groups mentioned
as examples for provisional constituencies in the Blueprint are
to *some* degree covered by existing groups: Small and large 
businesses in the Business Constituency, academics, consumer 
and civil society groups in the NCDNHC. As long as there is
no organization which can speak for the entirety for individual
domain holders, it would also be the NomCom's task to ensure a 
balance.

With that, best greetings from Bucharest,
/// Alexander

PS: Off-topic: Let's try to build an ICANN that doesn't look
like the monstrous Palace of Parliament across the street
from the Bucharest Marriott -- /that/ is Stalinism (and some
claim this is the second biggest building in the world):
http://www.club-t.com/seikan/romania/Tourism/Bucharest/Palace%20of%20Parliament.jpg
:)

--
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