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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Let's start off the discussions with Recommendation 1
from the LSE report:

"A centralized register of all GNSO stakeholders
should be established, which is up-to-date and
publicly accessible.  It should include members of
Constituencies and others involved in the GNSO task
forces."

...and in greater detail in paragraph 2.5:

"We recommend setting up a centrally held online
register of GNSO Constituency stakeholders, with
generic information about member organizations showing
what type of firm or body they are, its contact
details, and the name and email of a designated
representative.  Where a stakeholder is itself a
representative organization (such as an interest group
or trade association) acting on behalf of others, some
basic information should be given about the number of
organizations represented.  The stakeholder register
should be publicly available on the GNSO or ICANN
website."

With regard to task force members (part of the GNSO
Registry) the LSE recommends:

#17:  "Task Force participants should be more diverse
and should be drawn from a wider range of people in
the Internet community, and national and international
policy-making communities".

LSE commentary continues in paragraph 4.26:

"Because the current make-up of Task Forces has
generally mirrored the balance of constituent
interests in the Council, their debates and outputs
too often reproduce the same problems of intractable
interests that are seen at the Council level.  A
workable rule of thumb should be that Council members
and Constituency representatives should make up no
more than half of future task forces..., plus (where
appropriate) representatives from ICANN Advisory
Committees such as ALAC and the GAC... members could
be chosen from other organizations from the private
and intergovernmental sectors, ideally drawing in
people with distinctive expertise and
information/analysis capabilities."

What the LSE is seeking to put together appears to be
a central registry of available talent that could be
called upon to volunteer for GNSO Task Force projects.

What I don't want to see is an underclass.  I am
getting more than a little bit tired of seeing certain
groups "get the vote" while other volunteers remain
disenfranchised within the GNSO.  At the heart of this
debate is whether the unaffiliated -- Karl, Sotiris,
Debbie, etc. -- will have voting rights on a par with
others within some constituent framework within the
GNSO.

I have always thought of the GA as having the
potential to serve as a catch-all constituency to
serve the needs of the unrepresented within the GNSO. 
What is your view?  Would this be a good way forward?




--- Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
> 



      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html