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

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny wrote:

>>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?

I think the GA should be frequented by ALL and representative of ALL who
have an interest in all/any ICANN policies.  It should be the place where we
come together; business, registrars, resellers, registrants, government etc.

Whilst all the different factions have their own little groups that are
feeding into the process (I am not decrying this at all) I feel that it
would be good for these separate factions to frequent a general place of
discussion wrt the various issues/policies in order to better see other
points of view; perhaps this is a grass roots approach.  This is, in my
view, what the GA is all about; or at least should be.  The GA is the common
ground.  By forming various GA Policy WGs to put forward a GA consensus (as
well as opposing opinion when agreement cannot be found) the GA could be
more useful to both stakeholders and the policy makers at ICANN; who
currently have to wade through separate documents from all the different
factions, and individuals, who have perhaps not considered anything other
than their own individual/group needs.  The GA should reflect the needs and
opinions of all and should be informative to all.

The GA should be a place where anyone can come and view the goings on and
not be afraid to participate or ask questions.  A modicum of decorum is
required to facilitate this.

I think there should be more than one representative of the GA, possibly
area representatives, and that these representatives should be funded to
attend ICANN and related meetings and accorded the same voting rights as
other groups.

Just a few humble thoughts at 2am in the morning! Am I being Naive here? :-)

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: 22 September 2007 17:58
> To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: roberto@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] GA in the post GNSO-Review world
>
>
> 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
>
>
>