ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA

  • To: GA the DNSO <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:24:14 -0700 (PDT)

I surly do know hows to read Ms. Avri - cuz I learnt reel fine in Scool.
And I have met Mr. Gomes and Ms. Michel up close and personal -- tho they wood 
nevr member me. I have also been on working groups with the both of them.
But I just can't figure where they figured that the GA list was changed by 
these by-laws that do not address an already fete complete.
Could one of you Genius point that out to me? Purdy Pleez.
(note the bylaws do not address salary, bathrooms and Kent Crispins office 
either -- so by absence in bylaws does not mean they do not exist)
Mind you a firm ruling that the GA list is no longer must be included in the 
JPA decisions.

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:


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
> 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


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>