Re: [council] GA

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

All this considered, we as a council are still responsible for the GA  
list.  I am a subscriber and watched the process of developing these  
rules, though as a member of the council did not actively participate  
or vote on them.  I did see a well ordered process, in developing  
these rules.
I think the thing that we should do at this point is indicate that  
they can moderate the list  based on the rules they suggest.  This  
takes the issue of how we deal with this responsibility of ours off  
the table for the moment.  I do not think we need to get into  
discussing their self identity as a group, or their election  
processes. that is actually a board issue in any case.  Our only  
responsibility is the list and its behavior as a list; i.e. mostly  
its netiquette.
I admit that it is not one of our more pressing policy issues despite  
being a responsibility, that is why i was hoping to deal with this  
quickly and in a way that did not seem to create any de-facto  
realities or accept any new responsibilities. As I see it, there is a  
list, it is our responsibility to moderate it and this is one way to  
do it - let them make rules and see how it goes.
a.

Incidentally, a disclosure: Before I was elected GNSO chair, I was  
already a subscriber and did vote in the decision to hold an election  
vote.  Since becoming chair, I have distanced myself from active  
participation.  Personally, I would like to see the list make  
something of itself.
On 21 aug 2007, at 04.14, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist.
> The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO.
>
> The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who wants to  
> be on it.
> I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list  
> chairman and the only nominee
> was the one who proposed the idea of an election.
> In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list  
> subscribers, 10 voted and the
> winner got 7 votes for and 2 against.
>
> This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform.
> Lets focus on our policy priorities.