RE: [ga] GA in the post GNSO-Review world

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny wrote:

> In cooperation with the Board Governance 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 hopefully finally settle the question of the GA's future
function and authority in the new scheme of things.

I think we should start work on a proposal immediately.  I think we could
all do with focussing our attention on the way forward for the GA and how
we, the stakeholders, can assist in the ICANN policy making process.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: 22 September 2007 13:26
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ga] GA in the post GNSO-Review world
>
>
> 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
>
>
>