Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, GA the DNSO <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:46:58 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Avri, Denise, and all,
It is not within the GNSO councils purview to transform the GA into
anything, and it should not be. Certainly as George has suggested
that an "Additional" cross-constituency mailing list to discuss and debate
issues and proposals would be useful "IF" it were completely Open
and Transparent meaning without ANY form of Censorship of the
voluntary list subscribers and open to any and all that wish to
participate. But the GA already can and has from time to time,
served that function very well, especially when Censorship was
>From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sep 25, 2009 8:58 AM
>To: GA the DNSO <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: dmichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rod Beckstrom <rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA
>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.
>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
>> 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?
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx