[ga] GA in the post GNSO-Review world

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to refer back to the comments of Jonathan
Weinberg during the DNSO Review on the topic of the
GA.

Question:  How can the level of participation by GA
members in the GA be improved? 

     "The General Assembly labors under the handicap
of having no function and no authority. The only
function given by the bylaws to the General Assembly
*as a body* is to "nominate, pursuant to procedures
adopted by the NC and approved by the Board," the DNSO
members of the ICANN board. Under the Names Council's
procedures, a candidate shall be deemed nominated if
he is endorsed by at least ten members of the General
Assembly. Experience has shown this to be an
inconsequential hurdle. 

     Because the GA is powerless, participation in the
affairs of the GA as a body has no payoff.  Because
participation has no payoff, few people participate in
the GA's discussions.  That result is inevitable so
long as the GA, as a body, has no function." 

Question:  If changes are made in the constituency
structures, and possibly an individual constituency
added, should the GA continue to exist? 

     "The GA barely exists now.  To the extent that
the GA is simply a label for the set of interested
persons who may volunteer from time to time to serve
on working groups, etc., then that label can surely
continue to be used.  To the extent that the GA is
intended to signify an institution that has have
functions and authority *as a body* in the domain name
policy making process, no such institution currently
exists.  I think that it would be desirable if such an
institution did exist  but we need not worry about
abolishing something that doesn't exist today." 

http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/dnso_review.htm

At issue then is the future function and authority of
the GA.  GA members during the period of the DNSO
Review had previously adopted this position:

   RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:

1. Members of the General Assembly believe that the
DNSO dysfunctionality requires direct ICANN Board
intervention.

2. The General Assembly seeks to establish a
representative balance by being placed on equal
footing with the current DNSO Names Council and
creating a bicameral DNSO.

3. The General Assembly seeks initial
budgetary/Secretariat support for the DNSO/GA to
perform its functions.

4. The General Assembly will work with ICANN to
develop an appropiate funding model to support its
activities.

5. The General Assembly seeks representation on the
ICANN Board (to be filled by a representative voting
the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)

6. The General Assemnly seeks to have both an Advocate
and a Consensus Leader, both elected positions of the
DNSO/GA with budgetary control and responsibility for
all DNSO/GA staff.

7. The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment
to the DNSO as originally envisaged as a place for
cross-constituency dialogue and consensus building,
and requests the Board to fulfil its obligation to
facilitate the entry of thus far unrepresentated
constituencies. 

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-DNSO-Motion-Reorg-vote.html

In cooperation with the Board Governace Committee's
Working Group, we will now need to make clear our
vision of how we can best assist ICANN in a process
that will hopefuly finally settle the question of the
GA's future function and authority in the new scheme
of things.


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the 
tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting