RE: [ga] GA list clarification

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

My personal opinion is that this is a subject that the "new" GNSO has to
tackle.
The structure of the GNSO is changing, following the GNSO Review, and once
the GNSO is seated with the new format it can decide what is the best way to
organize its mailing lists. Whether a GA is a structure that the new GNSO
wants to keep or discontinue, will be a matter for GNSO decision. Also, if
the GNSO decides to change the format of the GA, for instance turning it
into a cross-constituency list, or cross-SG list, that's their decision to
make.
If they decide to keep it as is, that's also fine. The level of resources
that will be invested in the GA has to be determined as also being function
of the benefit that the GA brings to the GNSO. For instance, if this list
discusses things that are completely orthogonal to GNSO issues, the GNSO
might wonder whether resources are well invested in this effort.
As of today, with the GNSO Council meeting some 2.5 weeks away, I think that
it is premature to make changes.
Roberto
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: Saturday, 10 October 2009 01:28
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Denise Michel
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [ga] GA list clarification
> 
> 
> Denise, 
> 
> Many would argue that you are mistaken when you assert that 
> "the GNSO has no responsibility to maintain it"
> 
> Article X Section 3.1 of the bylaws:
> 
> "In addition, the GNSO Council is responsible for managing 
> open forums, in the form of mailing lists or otherwise, for 
> the participation of all who are willing to contribute to the 
> work of the GNSO; such forums shall be appropriately 
> moderated to ensure maximum focus on the business of the GNSO 
> and to minimize non-substantive and abusive postings."
> 
> Those that utilize the GA list do contribute to the work of 
> the GNSO. Numerous examples may be put forth of GA-List 
> contributions (most notably the GA-list contribution to the 
> GNSO's new gTLD discussions -- presented at the Washington DC 
> GNSO session). 
> 
> Just because the Council has chosen to abrogate its 
> responsibility to moderate the list does not relieve the GNSO 
> of its responsibility to manage open forums for our 
> participation.  Further, just as working groups in an open 
> forum environment will elect Chairs and Vice-Chairs to 
> progress discussions in a forthright manner (even though 
> there is no provision in the ICANN bylaws for those 
> list-members to elect officers), so too should GA-list 
> members be empowered in equal measure to elect their own list 
> officers.
> 
> I find your comments on the topic of the GA list to be a most 
> disturbing position for a policy specialist to put forth.  
> ICANN has recently affirmed its commitment to "facilitate 
> international participation in DNS technical coordination".  
> The non-cooperative approach that you have settled upon is a 
> far cry from the notion of "facilitation".
> 
> We expect Staff to support any and all reasonable endeavors 
> to contribute to the work of the GNSO.  This is an issue of 
> fairness.  
> 
> regards,
> Danny Younger
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>