Hi, As far as I can tell, we all received a copy of this email from the GA chair. Even so, given the council's responsibility for the GA list, I wanted to send it to the list so that it would be included in our archives. As an initial approach, I would like to do the following with regard to the GA charter (found at http://www.geolang.com/ draftGAListRules5.htm): - Acknowledge the GA request for consideration of their charter. - Given the council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, encourage them in taking steps to bring order and discipline to the GA list and indicate that they have the council's support in implementing the mailing list rules indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:
The Announce list is available for official pronouncements only. Emanating from the Secretariat of the NC and/or the Chair of the GA
In this case, the GA-announce list is solely for the use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the GA subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items. I do not recommend we make any change at this time in this list's status. - With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically 6, 8, and 9, indicate that the GA is free to determine its own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
Nominees for the Chair are sent to an email address provided by the Secretariat.
- With regards to the exceptions listed above, as I read them, they require activity by the council, its chair and secretariat that are not specifically mandated by the by-laws. Since the by-laws governing the GNSO and its governance structure are currently under review by the ICANN Board and its Governance WG, I recommend that we postpone any discussion of these issues until after the GSNO council's new governance situation is settled and understood. I should also point out that there was an earlier request that the GNSO council create another public discussion list, similar to the GA list but limited to members of existing GNSO constituencies. The request was independently submitted by a member of one GNSO constituency, but was not backed up by that constituency at that time, so I did not take it further. I am bringing it up now for completeness sake. I suggest that we try and resolve the issue of my response to the GA request over the email list. If there is need I will list this item under AOB in the next agenda, but if there are no objections to the response I suggest or to a modification of the response that we can agree to on the list, perhaps I can go ahead with a response without the need for a specific agenda item. Thanks a. Begin forwarded message:
From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@yahoo.com> Date: 18 augusti 2007 12.23.50 EDT To: avri@psg.com Subject: GA
Dear Councilors,
This letter is a formal request from the GNSO General Assembly for recognition of our List Rules and for a directive that we be allowed to interface with those in control of the List in order to implement our new rules.
Our GA list will be more effective in contributing to the business of the GNSO if we are allowed a modicum of self governance. Within the Rules we have provided for reasonable self organization and a disciplinary regimen.
We are mindful of the differences which from time to time may exist between the GA and the existing structural members of ICANN. It is by establishing procedures and restraints that we hope to change those differences into contributions.
Please earnestly consider this request.
Respectfully, Eric Hugh Dierker GA Chair
http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm or http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.txt
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Where does the GA appear in the by laws please ? What is its function? Philip
On 20 aug 2007, at 11.13, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Where does the GA appear in the by laws please ? What is its function? Philip
Specifically:
Section XX.5.9. Upon the adoption of this Transition Article, and until further action by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council shall assume responsibility for the DNSO General Assembly e-mail announcement and discussion lists.
As far as I can tell there has never been further action by the ICANN board in this matter. As for its purpose, I have assumed it fits under:
X.3.4 In addition, the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists or otherwise, for the participation of all who are willing to contribute to the work of the GNSO; such forums shall be appropriately moderated to ensure maximum focus on the business of the GNSO and to minimize non- substantive and abusive postings.
Since we do maintain the GA list under the by-laws, and since it is an open forum under othe council's responsibility, I believe we are responsible for seeing that it is appropriately moderated to to insure maximum focus. Any one who follows that list, knows that while it is occasionally focused on the business on the GSNO, it is also rife with non-substantive and abusive postings. There is, however, a community of serious list participants who wish to make the GA list a contributor, and it is this that I believe we should encourage. a.
Avri Doria a écrit :
Hi,
As far as I can tell, we all received a copy of this email from the GA chair. Even so, given the council's responsibility for the GA list, I wanted to send it to the list so that it would be included in our archives.
As an initial approach, I would like to do the following with regard to the GA charter (found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm):
- Acknowledge the GA request for consideration of their charter. - Given the council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, encourage them in taking steps to bring order and discipline to the GA list and indicate that they have the council's support in implementing the mailing list rules indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:
The Announce list is available for official pronouncements only. Emanating from the Secretariat of the NC and/or the Chair of the GA
In this case, the GA-announce list is solely for the use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the GA subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items. I do not recommend we make any change at this time in this list's status.
agreed, as this has always been the procedure.
- With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically 6, 8, and 9, indicate that the GA is free to determine its own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
Nominees for the Chair are sent to an email address provided by the Secretariat.
I read this as the GA secretariat and not the GNSO Secretariat.
- With regards to the exceptions listed above, as I read them, they require activity by the council, its chair and secretariat that are not specifically mandated by the by-laws. Since the by-laws governing the GNSO and its governance structure are currently under review by the ICANN Board and its Governance WG, I recommend that we postpone any discussion of these issues until after the GSNO council's new governance situation is settled and understood.
I should also point out that there was an earlier request that the GNSO council create another public discussion list, similar to the GA list but limited to members of existing GNSO constituencies. The request was independently submitted by a member of one GNSO constituency, but was not backed up by that constituency at that time, so I did not take it further. I am bringing it up now for completeness sake.
I suggest that we try and resolve the issue of my response to the GA request over the email list. If there is need I will list this item under AOB in the next agenda, but if there are no objections to the response I suggest or to a modification of the response that we can agree to on the list, perhaps I can go ahead with a response without the need for a specific agenda item.
Thanks a.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@yahoo.com> Date: 18 augusti 2007 12.23.50 EDT To: avri@psg.com Subject: GA
Dear Councilors,
This letter is a formal request from the GNSO General Assembly for recognition of our List Rules and for a directive that we be allowed to interface with those in control of the List in order to implement our new rules.
Our GA list will be more effective in contributing to the business of the GNSO if we are allowed a modicum of self governance. Within the Rules we have provided for reasonable self organization and a disciplinary regimen.
We are mindful of the differences which from time to time may exist between the GA and the existing structural members of ICANN. It is by establishing procedures and restraints that we hope to change those differences into contributions.
Please earnestly consider this request.
Respectfully, Eric Hugh Dierker GA Chair
http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm or http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.txt
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Avri - One small point of clarification - there is no General Assembly (GA) of the GNSO. There is only a mailing list that was used by the former GA of the DNSO which was not shut down when the DNSO was reformed into the GNSO (at which time the General Assembly was eliminated/not carried forward). Procedurally speaking, there cannot be a request from the GA because it does not exist. If there is a case to be made to recreate the former GA as part of the GNSO, it should be made as part of the GNSO reform discussion and not considered in isolation. Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
As far as I can tell, we all received a copy of this email from the GA chair. Even so, given the council's responsibility for the GA list, I wanted to send it to the list so that it would be included in our archives.
As an initial approach, I would like to do the following with regard to the GA charter (found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm):
- Acknowledge the GA request for consideration of their charter. - Given the council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, encourage them in taking steps to bring order and discipline to the GA list and indicate that they have the council's support in implementing the mailing list rules indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:
The Announce list is available for official pronouncements only. Emanating from the Secretariat of the NC and/or the Chair of the GA
In this case, the GA-announce list is solely for the use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the GA subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items. I do not recommend we make any change at this time in this list's status.
- With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically 6, 8, and 9, indicate that the GA is free to determine its own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
Nominees for the Chair are sent to an email address provided by the Secretariat.
- With regards to the exceptions listed above, as I read them, they require activity by the council, its chair and secretariat that are not specifically mandated by the by-laws. Since the by-laws governing the GNSO and its governance structure are currently under review by the ICANN Board and its Governance WG, I recommend that we postpone any discussion of these issues until after the GSNO council's new governance situation is settled and understood.
I should also point out that there was an earlier request that the GNSO council create another public discussion list, similar to the GA list but limited to members of existing GNSO constituencies. The request was independently submitted by a member of one GNSO constituency, but was not backed up by that constituency at that time, so I did not take it further. I am bringing it up now for completeness sake.
I suggest that we try and resolve the issue of my response to the GA request over the email list. If there is need I will list this item under AOB in the next agenda, but if there are no objections to the response I suggest or to a modification of the response that we can agree to on the list, perhaps I can go ahead with a response without the need for a specific agenda item.
Thanks a.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@yahoo.com> Date: 18 augusti 2007 12.23.50 EDT To: avri@psg.com Subject: GA
Dear Councilors,
This letter is a formal request from the GNSO General Assembly for recognition of our List Rules and for a directive that we be allowed to interface with those in control of the List in order to implement our new rules.
Our GA list will be more effective in contributing to the business of the GNSO if we are allowed a modicum of self governance. Within the Rules we have provided for reasonable self organization and a disciplinary regimen.
We are mindful of the differences which from time to time may exist between the GA and the existing structural members of ICANN. It is by establishing procedures and restraints that we hope to change those differences into contributions.
Please earnestly consider this request.
Respectfully, Eric Hugh Dierker GA Chair
http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm or http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.txt
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Ross, I understand your point from a literal point of view with regard to the GA organization but I would suggest that there is a group of people who participate on the GA list that do exist and are stakeholders in gTLDs. I believe any group of stakeholders may submit a request to the GNSO. That said though, I do agree with you that it would be wise to consider the request in the overall context of GNSO reform that will likely occur in the near future. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:23 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: GA
Avri -
One small point of clarification - there is no General Assembly (GA) of the GNSO. There is only a mailing list that was used by the former GA of the DNSO which was not shut down when the DNSO was reformed into the GNSO (at which time the General Assembly was eliminated/not carried forward).
Procedurally speaking, there cannot be a request from the GA because it does not exist. If there is a case to be made to recreate the former GA as part of the GNSO, it should be made as part of the GNSO reform discussion and not considered in isolation.
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
As far as I can tell, we all received a copy of this email from the GA chair. Even so, given the council's responsibility for the GA list, I wanted to send it to the list so that it would be included in our archives.
As an initial approach, I would like to do the following with regard to the GA charter (found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm):
- Acknowledge the GA request for consideration of their charter. - Given the council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, encourage them in taking steps to bring order and discipline to the GA list and indicate that they have the council's support in implementing the mailing list rules indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:
The Announce list is available for official pronouncements only. Emanating from the Secretariat of the NC and/or the Chair of the GA
In this case, the GA-announce list is solely for the use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the GA subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items. I do not recommend we make any change at this time in this list's status.
- With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically 6, 8, and 9, indicate that the GA is free to determine its own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
Nominees for the Chair are sent to an email address provided by the Secretariat.
- With regards to the exceptions listed above, as I read them, they require activity by the council, its chair and secretariat that are not specifically mandated by the by-laws. Since the by-laws governing the GNSO and its governance structure are currently under review by the ICANN Board and its Governance WG, I recommend that we postpone any discussion of these issues until after the GSNO council's new governance situation is settled and understood.
I should also point out that there was an earlier request that the GNSO council create another public discussion list, similar to the GA list but limited to members of existing GNSO constituencies. The request was independently submitted by a member of one GNSO constituency, but was not backed up by that constituency at that time, so I did not take it further. I am bringing it up now for completeness sake.
I suggest that we try and resolve the issue of my response to the GA request over the email list. If there is need I will list this item under AOB in the next agenda, but if there are no objections to the response I suggest or to a modification of the response that we can agree to on the list, perhaps I can go ahead with a response without the need for a specific agenda item.
Thanks a.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@yahoo.com> Date: 18 augusti 2007 12.23.50 EDT To: avri@psg.com Subject: GA
Dear Councilors,
This letter is a formal request from the GNSO General Assembly for recognition of our List Rules and for a directive that we be allowed to interface with those in control of the List in order to implement our new rules.
Our GA list will be more effective in contributing to the business of the GNSO if we are allowed a modicum of self governance. Within the Rules we have provided for reasonable self organization and a disciplinary regimen.
We are mindful of the differences which from time to time may exist between the GA and the existing structural members of ICANN. It is by establishing procedures and restraints that we hope to change those differences into contributions.
Please earnestly consider this request.
Respectfully, Eric Hugh Dierker GA Chair
http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm or http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.txt
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Yes, I agree. My note was simply meant to point at the procedural difficulties associated with accepting a request from a branch of the organization that does not exist. My personal point of view has long been that it is the constituency sub-structure and Council that should be dissolved and replaced with an open assembly that could allow stakeholders to self-form interest groups and come together to explore consensus on a policy by policy issue. The current structure is far to rigid and unrepresentative to be of much serious use to anyone. Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Ross, > > I understand your point from a literal point of view with regard to the > GA organization but I would suggest that there is a group of people who > participate on the GA list that do exist and are stakeholders in gTLDs. > I believe any group of stakeholders may submit a request to the GNSO. > That said though, I do agree with you that it would be wise to consider > the request in the overall context of GNSO reform that will likely occur > in the near future. > > Chuck Gomes > > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If > you have received this message in error, please notify sender > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader >> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:23 AM >> To: Avri Doria >> Cc: GNSO Council >> Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: GA >> >> Avri - >> >> One small point of clarification - there is no General >> Assembly (GA) of the GNSO. There is only a mailing list that >> was used by the former GA of the DNSO which was not shut down >> when the DNSO was reformed into the GNSO (at which time the >> General Assembly was eliminated/not carried forward). >> >> Procedurally speaking, there cannot be a request from the GA >> because it does not exist. If there is a case to be made to >> recreate the former GA as part of the GNSO, it should be made >> as part of the GNSO reform discussion and not considered in isolation. >> >> Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As far as I can tell, we all received a copy of this email >> from the GA >>> chair. Even so, given the council's responsibility for the >> GA list, I >>> wanted to send it to the list so that it would be included >> in our archives. >>> As an initial approach, I would like to do the following >> with regard >>> to the GA charter (found at >> http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm): >>> - Acknowledge the GA request for consideration of their charter. >>> - Given the council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of >>> the GA list, encourage them in taking steps to bring order and >>> discipline to the GA list and indicate that they have the council's >>> support in implementing the mailing list rules indicated in >> Section 2, >>> 3, 4, 5, and >>> 7 with the following exception in section 2: >>> >>>> The Announce list is available for official pronouncements only. >>>> Emanating from the Secretariat of the NC and/or the Chair of the GA >>>> >>> In this case, the GA-announce list is solely for the use of >> the GNSO >>> Secretariat for notifying the GA subscribers of GNSO and >> other ICANN >>> informational items. I do not recommend we make any change at this >>> time in this list's status. >>> >>> - With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, >>> specifically 6, 8, and 9, indicate that the GA is free to determine >>> its own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in >>> section 8 on elections: >>> >>>> An election is usually held near the end of the term of >> office for >>>> the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is >> decided by the >>>> outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO. >>>> Nominees for the Chair are sent to an email address >> provided by the >>>> Secretariat. >>> - With regards to the exceptions listed above, as I read them, they >>> require activity by the council, its chair and secretariat that are >>> not specifically mandated by the by-laws. Since the >> by-laws governing >>> the GNSO and its governance structure are currently under review by >>> the ICANN Board and its Governance WG, I recommend that we postpone >>> any discussion of these issues until after the GSNO council's new >>> governance situation is settled and understood. >>> >>> I should also point out that there was an earlier request that the >>> GNSO council create another public discussion list, similar >> to the GA >>> list but limited to members of existing GNSO constituencies. The >>> request was independently submitted by a member of one GNSO >>> constituency, but was not backed up by that constituency at >> that time, >>> so I did not take it further. I am bringing it up now for >> completeness sake. >>> I suggest that we try and resolve the issue of my response >> to the GA >>> request over the email list. If there is need I will list >> this item >>> under AOB in the next agenda, but if there are no objections to the >>> response I suggest or to a modification of the response that we can >>> agree to on the list, perhaps I can go ahead with a >> response without >>> the need for a specific agenda item. >>> >>> Thanks >>> a. >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@yahoo.com> >>>> Date: 18 augusti 2007 12.23.50 EDT >>>> To: avri@psg.com >>>> Subject: GA >>>> >>>> Dear Councilors, >>>> >>>> This letter is a formal request from the GNSO General Assembly for >>>> recognition of our List Rules and for a directive that we >> be allowed >>>> to interface with those in control of the List in order to >> implement >>>> our new rules. >>>> >>>> Our GA list will be more effective in contributing to the >> business of >>>> the GNSO if we are allowed a modicum of self governance. >> Within the >>>> Rules we have provided for reasonable self organization and a >>>> disciplinary regimen. >>>> >>>> We are mindful of the differences which from time to time >> may exist >>>> between the GA and the existing structural members of >> ICANN. It is by >>>> establishing procedures and restraints that we hope to >> change those >>>> differences into contributions. >>>> >>>> Please earnestly consider this request. >>>> >>>> Respectfully, >>>> Eric Hugh Dierker >>>> GA Chair >>>> >>>> http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm >>>> or >>>> http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.txt >>>> >>>> >>>> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Ross Rader >> Director, Retail Services >> Tucows Inc. >> >> http://www.domaindirect.com >> t. 416.538.5492 >> > > -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Hi, Thank you for the clarification. From my perspective, while there is not a General Assembly, there is a GA List, and that list seems to be trying to organize itself and become useful contributors. It is that, specifically list operations for a better behaved list, which I am recommending we support. I am not making any recommendations or statements concerning the re- introduction of a General Assembly and am explicitly trying to say that we have no involvement in the internal organization of the GA list. I apologize if I was sufficiently clear on this. a. On 20 aug 2007, at 11.23, Ross Rader wrote: > Avri - > > One small point of clarification - there is no General Assembly > (GA) of the GNSO. There is only a mailing list that was used by the > former GA of the DNSO which was not shut down when the DNSO was > reformed into the GNSO (at which time the General Assembly was > eliminated/not carried forward). > > Procedurally speaking, there cannot be a request from the GA > because it does not exist. If there is a case to be made to > recreate the former GA as part of the GNSO, it should be made as > part of the GNSO reform discussion and not considered in isolation. > > Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> As far as I can tell, we all received a copy of this email from >> the GA chair. Even so, given the council's responsibility for the >> GA list, I wanted to send it to the list so that it would be >> included in our archives. >> As an initial approach, I would like to do the following with >> regard to the GA charter (found at http://www.geolang.com/ >> draftGAListRules5.htm): >> - Acknowledge the GA request for consideration of their charter. >> - Given the council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation >> of the GA list, encourage them in taking steps to bring order and >> discipline to the GA list and indicate that they have the >> council's support in implementing the mailing list rules indicated >> in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in >> section 2: >>> The Announce list is available for official pronouncements only. >>> Emanating from the Secretariat of the NC and/or the Chair of the GA >>> >> In this case, the GA-announce list is solely for the use of the >> GNSO Secretariat for notifying the GA subscribers of GNSO and >> other ICANN informational items. I do not recommend we make any >> change at this time in this list's status. >> - With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, >> specifically 6, 8, and 9, indicate that the GA is free to >> determine its own organizational structure, with the following >> exceptions in section 8 on elections: >>> An election is usually held near the end of the term of office >>> for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided >>> by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO. >>> Nominees for the Chair are sent to an email address provided by >>> the Secretariat. >> - With regards to the exceptions listed above, as I read them, >> they require activity by the council, its chair and secretariat >> that are not specifically mandated by the by-laws. Since the by- >> laws governing the GNSO and its governance structure are currently >> under review by the ICANN Board and its Governance WG, I recommend >> that we postpone any discussion of these issues until after the >> GSNO council's new governance situation is settled and understood. >> I should also point out that there was an earlier request that the >> GNSO council create another public discussion list, similar to the >> GA list but limited to members of existing GNSO constituencies. >> The request was independently submitted by a member of one GNSO >> constituency, but was not backed up by that constituency at that >> time, so I did not take it further. I am bringing it up now for >> completeness sake. >> I suggest that we try and resolve the issue of my response to the >> GA request over the email list. If there is need I will list this >> item under AOB in the next agenda, but if there are no objections >> to the response I suggest or to a modification of the response >> that we can agree to on the list, perhaps I can go ahead with a >> response without the need for a specific agenda item. >> Thanks >> a. >> Begin forwarded message: >>> From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@yahoo.com> >>> Date: 18 augusti 2007 12.23.50 EDT >>> To: avri@psg.com >>> Subject: GA >>> >>> Dear Councilors, >>> >>> This letter is a formal request from the GNSO General Assembly >>> for recognition of our List Rules and for a directive that we be >>> allowed to interface with those in control of the List in order >>> to implement our new rules. >>> >>> Our GA list will be more effective in contributing to the >>> business of the GNSO if we are allowed a modicum of self >>> governance. Within the Rules we have provided for reasonable self >>> organization and a disciplinary regimen. >>> >>> We are mindful of the differences which from time to time may >>> exist between the GA and the existing structural members of >>> ICANN. It is by establishing procedures and restraints that we >>> hope to change those differences into contributions. >>> >>> Please earnestly consider this request. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> Eric Hugh Dierker >>> GA Chair >>> >>> http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm >>> or >>> http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.txt >>> >>> >>> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. > > > -- > Regards, > > Ross Rader > Director, Retail Services > Tucows Inc. > > http://www.domaindirect.com > t. 416.538.5492 >
It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist. The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO. The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who wants to be on it. I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list chairman and the only nominee was the one who proposed the idea of an election. In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list subscribers, 10 voted and the winner got 7 votes for and 2 against. This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform. Lets focus on our policy priorities.
Hi, All this considered, we as a council are still responsible for the GA list. I am a subscriber and watched the process of developing these rules, though as a member of the council did not actively participate or vote on them. I did see a well ordered process, in developing these rules. I think the thing that we should do at this point is indicate that they can moderate the list based on the rules they suggest. This takes the issue of how we deal with this responsibility of ours off the table for the moment. I do not think we need to get into discussing their self identity as a group, or their election processes. that is actually a board issue in any case. Our only responsibility is the list and its behavior as a list; i.e. mostly its netiquette. I admit that it is not one of our more pressing policy issues despite being a responsibility, that is why i was hoping to deal with this quickly and in a way that did not seem to create any de-facto realities or accept any new responsibilities. As I see it, there is a list, it is our responsibility to moderate it and this is one way to do it - let them make rules and see how it goes. a. Incidentally, a disclosure: Before I was elected GNSO chair, I was already a subscriber and did vote in the decision to hold an election vote. Since becoming chair, I have distanced myself from active participation. Personally, I would like to see the list make something of itself. On 21 aug 2007, at 04.14, Philip Sheppard wrote:
It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist. The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO.
The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who wants to be on it. I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list chairman and the only nominee was the one who proposed the idea of an election. In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list subscribers, 10 voted and the winner got 7 votes for and 2 against.
This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform. Lets focus on our policy priorities.
What does it mean that an organization exists? Is organizational existence defined by the ICANN Bylaws? In other words, if an organization is not defined in the Bylaws, it does not exist? If so and if we only responded to requests from Bylaws defined organizations, then we would not be able to respond to most organizations and the bottom-up policy development process would not work. According to the Bylaws, the primary responsibility of the Council is to manage the policy development process. Providing forums for input into that process seems to me to be a very legitimate means of fulfilling that responsibility. And if we restrict those forums to existing constituencies, then we are limiting input, unless of course we think the constituency structure is perfect. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:15 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] GA
It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist. The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO.
The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who wants to be on it. I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list chairman and the only nominee was the one who proposed the idea of an election. In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list subscribers, 10 voted and the winner got 7 votes for and 2 against.
This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform. Lets focus on our policy priorities.
The combination of new gTLDs + Whois + domain tasting has exhausted my current Councilor bandwidth. I propose that we defer action until at least after September 6. Kristina Rosette -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:05 AM To: Philip Sheppard; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] GA What does it mean that an organization exists? Is organizational existence defined by the ICANN Bylaws? In other words, if an organization is not defined in the Bylaws, it does not exist? If so and if we only responded to requests from Bylaws defined organizations, then we would not be able to respond to most organizations and the bottom-up policy development process would not work. According to the Bylaws, the primary responsibility of the Council is to manage the policy development process. Providing forums for input into that process seems to me to be a very legitimate means of fulfilling that responsibility. And if we restrict those forums to existing constituencies, then we are limiting input, unless of course we think the constituency structure is perfect. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:15 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] GA
It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist. The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO.
The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who wants to be
on it. I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list chairman and the only nominee was the one who proposed the idea of an election. In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list subscribers, 10 voted and the winner got 7 votes for and 2 against.
This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform. Lets focus on our policy priorities.
I agree with a slight deferral. While its an important task and I certainly welcome more public input into the GNSO process, we need to realistic about our current workload. Let's move a few items off our plate before we add new items to it. Robin Rosette, Kristina wrote:
The combination of new gTLDs + Whois + domain tasting has exhausted my current Councilor bandwidth. I propose that we defer action until at least after September 6.
Kristina Rosette
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:05 AM To: Philip Sheppard; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] GA
What does it mean that an organization exists? Is organizational existence defined by the ICANN Bylaws? In other words, if an organization is not defined in the Bylaws, it does not exist? If so and if we only responded to requests from Bylaws defined organizations, then we would not be able to respond to most organizations and the bottom-up policy development process would not work.
According to the Bylaws, the primary responsibility of the Council is to manage the policy development process. Providing forums for input into that process seems to me to be a very legitimate means of fulfilling that responsibility. And if we restrict those forums to existing constituencies, then we are limiting input, unless of course we think the constituency structure is perfect.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:15 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] GA
It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist. The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO.
The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who wants to be
on it. I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list chairman and the only nominee was the one who proposed the idea of an election. In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list subscribers, 10 voted and the winner got 7 votes for and 2 against.
This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform. Lets focus on our policy priorities.
I certainly respect all the time people are putting in on GNSO work; I also have been spending a lot of time. But at the same time, let's not make this more work than it is. As long as we are assured that minimal staff time will be required, it seems to me that it is not a very complex task to let the participants of the GA list manage their own list. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:18 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] GA
I agree with a slight deferral. While its an important task and I certainly welcome more public input into the GNSO process, we need to realistic about our current workload.
Let's move a few items off our plate before we add new items to it.
Robin
Rosette, Kristina wrote:
The combination of new gTLDs + Whois + domain tasting has exhausted my current Councilor bandwidth. I propose that we defer action until at least after September 6.
Kristina Rosette
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:05 AM To: Philip Sheppard; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] GA
What does it mean that an organization exists? Is organizational existence defined by the ICANN Bylaws? In other words, if an organization is not defined in the Bylaws, it does not exist? If so and if we only responded to requests from Bylaws defined organizations, then we would not be able to respond to most organizations and the bottom-up policy development process would not work.
According to the Bylaws, the primary responsibility of the Council is to manage the policy development process. Providing forums for input into that process seems to me to be a very legitimate means of fulfilling that responsibility. And if we restrict those forums to existing constituencies, then we are limiting input, unless of course we think the constituency structure is perfect.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:15 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] GA
It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist. The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO.
The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who wants to be
on it. I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list chairman and the only nominee was the one who proposed the idea of an election. In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list subscribers, 10 voted and the winner got 7 votes for and 2 against.
This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform. Lets focus on our policy priorities.
If I understand the request correctly the only work involved for us (the workload for staff should be checked, but I believe that it does not exceed the status quo) would be to answer it positively. In light of more ICANN participation and in recognition that the GA list is already in existance and use I'm very much in support of this self organized approach for more structure. Best, tom Am 21.08.2007 schrieb Gomes, Chuck:
I certainly respect all the time people are putting in on GNSO work; I also have been spending a lot of time. But at the same time, let's not make this more work than it is. As long as we are assured that minimal staff time will be required, it seems to me that it is not a very complex task to let the participants of the GA list manage their own list.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:18 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] GA
I agree with a slight deferral. While its an important task and I certainly welcome more public input into the GNSO process, we need to realistic about our current workload.
Let's move a few items off our plate before we add new items to it.
Robin
Rosette, Kristina wrote:
The combination of new gTLDs + Whois + domain tasting has exhausted my current Councilor bandwidth. I propose that we defer action until at least after September 6.
Kristina Rosette
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:05 AM To: Philip Sheppard; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] GA
What does it mean that an organization exists? Is organizational existence defined by the ICANN Bylaws? In other words, if an organization is not defined in the Bylaws, it does not exist? If so and if we only responded to requests from Bylaws defined organizations, then we would not be able to respond to most organizations and the bottom-up policy development process would not work.
According to the Bylaws, the primary responsibility of the Council is to manage the policy development process. Providing forums for input into that process seems to me to be a very legitimate means of fulfilling that responsibility. And if we restrict those forums to existing constituencies, then we are limiting input, unless of course we think the constituency structure is perfect.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:15 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] GA
It is clear we cannot respond to organisations that do not exist. The Board has abolished the General Assembly of the DNSO.
The GA today is a mailing list for anyone in the world who wants to be
on it. I am informed that there was an election for a mailing list chairman and the only nominee was the one who proposed the idea of an election. In the election of April 2007 of the 200 or so mailing list subscribers, 10 voted and the winner got 7 votes for and 2 against.
This is clearly an issue for the wider ICANN reform. Lets focus on our policy priorities.
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
How do fellow Councillors understand the difference between the GA mail list (individuals) and the ALAC organisation (individuals) who have a liaison on Council?
You cited the main difference Philip: The ALAC has a liaison on the Council. Both are possible sources of input into the policy development process. The ALAC at least in terms of design has the potential of representing many more individuals if it is successful. Both in my opinion are relatively untested to date in terms of their representativeness of the individual user community. The GA list members are trying to work on their legitimacy by applying some rules to the list; the ALAC is just now at a point where there are approved RALOs for all five regions so we will now see whether the At-Large structure will result in obtaining feedback from individual users all over the world and feed it back into policy development efforts. Regardless of how effective either may be in representing a broad base of individual users, they are still avenues for input, something that is important in our bottom-up processes. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:07 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GA
How do fellow Councillors understand the difference between the GA mail list (individuals) and the ALAC organisation (individuals) who have a liaison on Council?
Thanks for the clarification, Chuck. If the GA list only needs from us its list rules approved, then let's do it as soon as possible. Thanks, Robin Gomes, Chuck wrote:
You cited the main difference Philip: The ALAC has a liaison on the Council. Both are possible sources of input into the policy development process. The ALAC at least in terms of design has the potential of representing many more individuals if it is successful. Both in my opinion are relatively untested to date in terms of their representativeness of the individual user community. The GA list members are trying to work on their legitimacy by applying some rules to the list; the ALAC is just now at a point where there are approved RALOs for all five regions so we will now see whether the At-Large structure will result in obtaining feedback from individual users all over the world and feed it back into policy development efforts. Regardless of how effective either may be in representing a broad base of individual users, they are still avenues for input, something that is important in our bottom-up processes.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:07 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GA
How do fellow Councillors understand the difference between the GA mail list (individuals) and the ALAC organisation (individuals) who have a liaison on Council?
Hello All,
One small point of clarification - there is no General Assembly (GA) of the GNSO. There is only a mailing list that was used by the former GA of the DNSO which was not shut down when the DNSO was reformed into the GNSO (at which time the General Assembly was eliminated/not carried forward).
That is my understanding also. I recall at the time the GNSO was created that as chair of the new GNSO I received a request to maintain the GA mailing list. This request was granted, and the GNSO Secretariat has assisted with ensuring the mailing list operates effectively. Since that time, many GNSO issues have been discussed on the GA list, and often summaries of the discussions have been provided by members of the GA mailing list as input in the various public comment processes of the GNSO. It would certainly be reasonable in the context of GNSO reform to review what mailing lists exist and how to better engage the wider community in the GNSO policy development,. Regards Bruce Tonkin
Avri, Your proposed response seems pretty good overall in my opinion. But I think it would be good to ask them some questions as follows: There are three factors that need to be considered in this request: 1) The GNSO Secretariat already has an excessive workload so it is critical for the Council to make sure that the demand on her time is within reasonable bounds; 2) ICANN operational staff members also have full workloads so we need to make sure that any new tasks that may be assigned to them fit within their job responsibility capacity; and 3) would any additional workload created by the institution of the proposed GA list rules interfere with other GNSO priorities. In that regard, it would be very helpful to understand what responsibilities for implementing and enforcing the list rules would depend on ICANN staff (Secretariat, operational staff, etc.). For example: who would do the list monitoring? Would any support be needed by ICANN staff in that regard and, if so, what is an estimate of how much time might be needed? Who would enforce the rules and at what point would ICANN staff need to get involved? Any detail that can be provided in this regard would assist the Council in responding to the request. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:06 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Fwd: GA
Hi,
As far as I can tell, we all received a copy of this email from the GA chair. Even so, given the council's responsibility for the GA list, I wanted to send it to the list so that it would be included in our archives.
As an initial approach, I would like to do the following with regard to the GA charter (found at http://www.geolang.com/ draftGAListRules5.htm):
- Acknowledge the GA request for consideration of their charter. - Given the council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, encourage them in taking steps to bring order and discipline to the GA list and indicate that they have the council's support in implementing the mailing list rules indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:
The Announce list is available for official pronouncements only. Emanating from the Secretariat of the NC and/or the Chair of the GA
In this case, the GA-announce list is solely for the use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the GA subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items. I do not recommend we make any change at this time in this list's status.
- With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically 6, 8, and 9, indicate that the GA is free to determine its own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
Nominees for the Chair are sent to an email address provided by the Secretariat.
- With regards to the exceptions listed above, as I read them, they require activity by the council, its chair and secretariat that are not specifically mandated by the by-laws. Since the by-laws governing the GNSO and its governance structure are currently under review by the ICANN Board and its Governance WG, I recommend that we postpone any discussion of these issues until after the GSNO council's new governance situation is settled and understood.
I should also point out that there was an earlier request that the GNSO council create another public discussion list, similar to the GA list but limited to members of existing GNSO constituencies. The request was independently submitted by a member of one GNSO constituency, but was not backed up by that constituency at that time, so I did not take it further. I am bringing it up now for completeness sake.
I suggest that we try and resolve the issue of my response to the GA request over the email list. If there is need I will list this item under AOB in the next agenda, but if there are no objections to the response I suggest or to a modification of the response that we can agree to on the list, perhaps I can go ahead with a response without the need for a specific agenda item.
Thanks a.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@yahoo.com> Date: 18 augusti 2007 12.23.50 EDT To: avri@psg.com Subject: GA
Dear Councilors,
This letter is a formal request from the GNSO General Assembly for recognition of our List Rules and for a directive that we be allowed to interface with those in control of the List in order to implement our new rules.
Our GA list will be more effective in contributing to the business of the GNSO if we are allowed a modicum of self governance. Within the Rules we have provided for reasonable self organization and a disciplinary regimen.
We are mindful of the differences which from time to time may exist between the GA and the existing structural members of ICANN. It is by establishing procedures and restraints that we hope to change those differences into contributions.
Please earnestly consider this request.
Respectfully, Eric Hugh Dierker GA Chair
http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm or http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.txt
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
participants (9)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG -
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
Robin Gross -
Rosette, Kristina -
Ross Rader -
Thomas Keller