Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Until the recent change in the Bylaws, it was my belief that the  
existence of the list was mandated by the Bylaws.  While Denise Michel  
has recently explained to the GNSO council that we were supposed to  
have transformed this into a constituent's list, this was not an  
interpretation I had ever heard before or came up with myself.  Since  
become chair of the GNSO council, I have read every message that came  
out on this list with concern of what, if anything the council was  
empowered to actually do, other then maintain the list.  When a group  
of list members came to the council asking to create a set of rules  
and a charter for usage of the list, the council agreed to the list's  
attempt at self governance.  I was personally hopeful at the time, and  
am disappointed that the effort fell apart.
But as I said, I never thought it was within the GNSO Council purview  
to close down the list or change its character in any top down way.   
Once the list established its own rule set, I thought it was fine to  
let it self administer, and until that broke down recently, I thought  
I saw improvement in the dynamics of the list.
Now with the newly approved Bylaws that leave out any mention of the  
GA list, or of GNSO Council responsibility for the list, I believe  
that the GNSO council may no longer have any responsibilities with  
regard to the list - but I have inquired of legal counsel and the VP  
of Policy to make sure.
Personally speaking, and in general, I think having a list that is  
open to all, whether they are constituents/registrants or not, is a  
good idea.  Yes, I also believe the list should be managed according  
to rules for proper usage, and I think that the rules that had been  
developed by the list itself in a bottom-up manner last year were a  
good start.  I hope the list can be helped back to the point where  
those rules again become operative.
And of course I support Chuck's call for more of the participants on  
this list to engage in the working groups and other efforts being  
created within the restructured GNSO.
So do answer your question, no, I do not think this list should be  
shut down.   I think it should be helped back to a state of  
usefulness.  I must accept blame for my inability to do so within my  
tenure as chair of the GNSO council, but I repeat, I really did think  
the list had made a start of it, until just recently.
One note on elections of a new chair:  It could be, and has been,  
argued that the inability of the past chair of the list (per its self  
defined charter) to hold elections as he was required to do at the end  
of his tenure was in part responsible for the breakdown.  I understand  
his request, although extremely belated, of help from ICANN in holding  
these elections, and I understand the reasons why ICANN felt it could  
not oblige.  However, there are several ways to hold elections and  
insisting that it was either ICANN based election mechanisms or  
nothing makes no sense to me.  I belong to several groups that have  
elections and have found there is often someone who is wiling to help.
In sort, it may be quixotic of me to believe this, but I do believe in  
the principle of this list and do believe it could be made useful again.
a.

On 25 Sep 2009, at 09:10, Thomas Narten wrote:

> I do not understand what purpose this list serves and why the GNSO
> does not just turn it off. The mere existance of the list would imply
> that ICANN somehow supports it, and the naive individual might think
> this list is a place to learn things of importance or to participate
> in ICANN.
>
> The GA no longer exists within ICANN and hasn't for more years than I
> have been participating in ICANN...
>
> I would welcome a forum where general discussion of matters of
> importance to ICANN could be discussed in a thoughtful manner. But
> this list clearly does achieve such a goal, by almost any metric one
> could imagine. (My favorite metric is that Jeff Williams dominates
> this list in terms of number of postings, which pretty much says it
> all.)
>
> Question:
>
> Does anyone else besides me think that the GNSO should simply
> acknowledge the uselessness of this list and shut the list down?
>
> And if so, how do we make it so?
>
> Thomas