[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ga] Bottom up election or not ? According with the White Paper, IFWP, and common sense

On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 06:30:10PM -0500, Javier Rodriguez wrote:
> Ok.  This is what it says:
> >Direct from the ICANN Bylaws:
> >
> >(i)  The NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually. 
> The ICANN Bylaws has been changed many, many times.  And it will continue changing, in every
> ICANN meeting there is changes (almost).
> So there should not be impediment or oposition to change the ICANN bylaws if there is a good
> reason.
> If we are seeing that the "Bottom up" election principle is not happening or it will not happen, are
> we able to propose to the ICANN Board to change it ? someone, maybe a lawyer, can put
> in the correct words that the GA assambly is not made of little children who need to have its
> own chairman elected by other body ?  Is this, the GA, a serious body who can elect by themselves
> its own chairman ?
> Am I asking too much ?


1) The language in the ICANN bylaws concerning the role of
the GA is a reflection of a large complex compromise that was
developed over several contentious months.  Many of the parties to 
that compromise do not want the GA to have a determinitive role, 
for a variety of reasons ranging from a fear of anarchy to pure 

2) Many of those very people are *in* the GA -- that is, it isn't 
clear that the overwhelming in sentiment in the GA is as you desire 
(there are 240 people subscribed to the GA list, but probably no 
more than a quarter of those actually post).  Furthermore, the NC 
has come to the belated realization that there are many members of 
constituencies who are not on the GA list, but who nonetheless are 
interested members.

3) There is a common high-level view of the structure of ICANN that
has the Supporting Organizations in the role of the DNSO as "expert"
bodies, instead of pseudo-legislative representative bodies. 

One of the real problems in all this is that proponents of what
one might term as "populist involvement" have largely assumed an
intensely adversarial tone -- angrily questioning the legitimacy of
ICANN and at the same time stridently demanding to be granted
"powers" in the ICANN structure.  This serves to drown out the
reasonable folk who also see a value to a stronger role for

On the other hand, the proposals for the GA AdCom point to what I
think is an obvious fact -- the GA needs some organizational
structure.  However, I think that structure will grow by slow steps
dictated by practicality, and not through demands for representation. 

Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain