Re: [ga] Evolution - GA
First of all, I agree with your assumption.
>Assumptions (the world as it should be and may have been envisaged in the
>All relevant and significant stakeholders should have the possibility of
>representation in a constituency.
This should be the first point to be fixed, independently from what the GA
is or should become.
Since the Individual Domain Name Holders are beyond any reasonable doubt a
significant stakeholder, the opposition by NC to create this long due
constituency in unexplainable to me.
>The GA is the rallying point for all constituencies.
>Therefore a logical conclusion is that,
>- The GA mail list and the constituency liaison list should be one and the
>- the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and the same.
I have doubts about this.
First of all, the GA should also be an open forum, hence not restricted in
principle, although one would expect that the core would be built around the
participants in the constituencies.
But I can clearly see that, unless we build an "everybody else"
constituency, there will always be the chance of having somebody that is not
member of a constituency that subscribes to contribute. Think, for instance,
at some people in the PSO or ASO who want to occasionally participate.
So the GA will include all constituencies, but not limited to.
Secondly, the logic of the representativity in the GA is "one individual -
one voice", which is different from the NC/constituencies. Therefore one
would expect a fairly different participation, the potential creation of a
different majority on issues, all things that might express the willingness
for a different representation. In other words, the NC Chair should have the
consensus, or at least the majority, of the 21 (to be 24, as we agreed
above) NC representatives from the constituencies, the GA Chair should have
the consensus, or at least the majority, of the hundreds of individuals,
that are unlikely to be distributed as the NC reps.
Last point, is about the use of AtLarge as a "GA succedaneum", as an "eighth
constituency". I disagree with this for two reasons:
1. the AtLarge should include individuals that have an interest of any type
in ICANN, but not nwecessarily in the DNSO;
2. this "catch all" will be unmanageable as a constituency, because it will
fail to have what all other DNSO constituencies have, i.e. a "core business"
(in the wide sense) in the DNSO. This 8th constituency, in other words,
will still fail to represent the Individual Domain Name Holders, because it
would not be representative of their interests (it might in fact not being
even composed by a majority of individuals in this condition).
So, while we agree on the assumptions, IMHO these assumptions lead to one of
the two solutions:
1. dynamically correct the constituency structure with a mechanism to
add/delete/modify the number of constituencies when needed (remember the
2. get rid altogether of the constituency structure and replace it with a GA
type structure (Karl Auerbach's solution, identifiable to a certain extent
with the BWG draft).
Of course, in case 2. the NC Chair can easily be the GA Chair.
>Why has this not happened?
>The GA mail list became a public chat list of a public who were either,
>A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by the constituencies
>or B. others who felt they were not represented by the constituencies
>(notably individual name holders who were not businesses or non-commercial
>If the groups in B are relevant and significant stakeholders, get them to
>form a constituency and participate in the NC.
>Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved challenges for
>individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large structure to provide
>this organisation and to elect its NC reps.
>Then, get all constituencies via their NC reps to vote for the DNSO chair,
>who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float this idea safe in the
>knowledge it won't be me.) Thoughts?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
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