RE: [ga] primary objectives of the General Assembly mailing list

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny wrote:

> As such, I would change the wording to read "to ascertain and 
> transmit the views of the membership".

I think that is a well reasoned change to make.  Very often when conducting
market research, the opinions one is after are not necessarily those of the
majority.  To present both sides and their rationales could be very helpful
to ICANN and the associated bodies in formulating policy changes that take
into account the views and concerns of all.  I am for this change and unless
I hear to the contrary, I will incorporate it within the next version.

> Please note that as some list participants are articulating 
> the views of special-interest communities (this is a 
> cross-constituency platform), the output of this body cannot 
> necessarily be viewed as the "views of the ordinary citizen".  

One thing I am trying to get across in these rules, and this is something
that I think is most important to allow freedom for participation, is that
the people participating are individuals and, unless otherwise stated (as is
the case with our current Chair posting as himself or as Chair); their
comments and opinions are their own and not necessarily those of the
organizations that they generally represent.  This gives each individual the
right to express an individual opinion whether they be Board member, Chair
or any other related position.  Thus when I post it is as me, myself and I
and not as MD of this company, CEO of that, Board Member of this or that or
the other.

Comments and wording on this would be most welcome - assuming you agree.

Best

Debbie
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: 26 July 2007 13:46
> To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] primary objectives of the General Assembly 
> mailing list
> 
> Joop has put forward a very reasonable concern.
> 
> The power of the Chair to determine rough consensus can 
> easily be abused (as is the case at the moment within the 
> GNSO's WHOIS WG where the BC Chair Philip Shepard is 
> declaring "agreement" on language where no such agreement 
> exists -- and we've seen this happen before when BC members 
> have chaired other working groups such as the earlier DNSO Review WG).
> 
> With that said, I think we're making a mistake by becoming 
> infatuated with the notion of attaining and representing a 
> consensus view.  If this body will ever get to the point of 
> issuing documents to the Board, it will be more important to 
> record and transmit all views and the rationale for such 
> views (as this body is, by definition, not a constituency 
> that has the obligation to endeavor to represent a rough consensus).
> 
> As such, I would change the wording to read "to ascertain and 
> transmit the views of the membership".
> 
> Please note that as some list participants are articulating 
> the views of special-interest communities (this is a 
> cross-constituency platform), the output of this body cannot 
> necessarily be viewed as the "views of the ordinary citizen".  
> 
> 
> Joop wrote:
> 
> Frankly, I'm a bit worried about any mechanism that purports 
> "to ascertain and represent the consensual views of the 
> ordinary citizen as a collective" if it isn't based on voting 
> and counting.
> 
> 
> 
>        
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> Got a little couch potato? 
> Check out fun summer activities for kids.
> http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activit
> ies+for+kids&cs=bz 
> 
> 
>