Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew and all,

  The problem(s) with voting is being able to do so via a
secret ballot.  List voting doesn't lend itself to doing that
successfully or confidently, but can be achieved with a bit
of work.  INEGroup has done it for instance.  So the
only question(s) remaining are if list voting, whom will
do the work to create a successful and confident secret
ballot, host and manage it securely? 2.) If a web based 
voting product which one will be chosen, and whom will pay 
for it let alone host it and manage it honestly and securely?
The last question remaining with voting, is will all ballots
be multilingual so that non-english primary language speekers
can fully functionally participate?

  Now back to the IDNO history or consideration.  The IDNO
originally was a good idea that went terribly badly due to
corruption and deceipt.  Hence it's unfortunate but necessary
demise. But it still could rise from the ashes of ill repute
with 'NEW' leadership, funding, and new accountable process.  A
tall order to be sure, but demonstrating that 'lessons learned'
are fully accomodated 'May' lead to a successful endevor.  No free
lunch though I would immagine as far as ICANN/GNSO are concerned,
and rightfully so.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 16, 2010 11:20 PM
>To: Andrew McMeikan <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Accountability Headquarters <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA  irrelevant
>
>
>
>On May 16, 2010, at 9:17 PM, Andrew McMeikan wrote:
>
>> 
>> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>>> Getting down to business..
>>> 
>>> I don't see any reason why one would not consider those who acquire
>>> domain names any less a logical constituency than those who sell domain
>>> names (indeed, ICANN has two flavors of constituency for those who sell
>>> names - registries and registrars).  And indeed it would seem that those
>>> who acquire domain names are arguably more entitled to constituency
>>> status than are those who are indirectly affected by domain names, such
>>> as intellectual property holders or ISPs or businesses that may or may
>>> not even have domain names.
>> 
>> I think perhaps that they are seen as the entire stakeholder group,
>> obviously a much too powerful voice for ICANN to ignore, so they
>> split it into smaller stakeholder groups.  None of which entirely
>> suit and IDNO type constituany (although the NCSG is getting close
>> with their proposed changes).
>> 
>> 
>>> There *have* been very concrete proposals for domain name holders to
>>> obtain formalized status within ICANN's structures.  The old IDNO
>>> proposal was fairly concrete and fully encompassed every natural person
>>> who had control of a domain name.  (Even corporate ownership was
>>> recognized through the recognition of named people with a corporate
>>> structure who had authority within that corporation of a degree that one
>>> could say "that person is the owner".)
>> 
>> The IDNO was active, vigerous and IMO viable.  It was overtly
>> unrecognized and seemed to get ICANN hostility, the responses of
>> ICANN to the group killed much enthusiasm.  Now this is just from
>> memory but it seemed to be "run along to a real stakeholder group".
>> 
>>> 
>>> The problem is that ICANN generally treats such proposals as unimportant
>>> or flippant and thus drains their ability to obtain backing and momentum.
>>> 
>> agreed.
>> 
>>> The board of directors of ICANN need not wait for a concrete proposal;
>>> rather it could write a simple resolution that recognizes that domain
>>> name registrants appear under-represent within ICANN, expresses a
>>> corporate desire to remedy that under-representation, and says that it
>>> desires concrete proposals, each accompanied by a roster of supporters,
>>> to be submitted for board consideration by such-and-such a date.
>>> 
>>>        --karl--
>>> 
>> 
>> They need not wait, but they seem unmotivated to serve any public
>> interest that does not have buckets of money.  After all they are
>> already collecting $$$ without having to pay attention, what can we
>> wave in front of them to get noticed?
>> 
>> I suspect that ICANN will be very happy with an IDNO type
>> constituency that is a very small voice within the NCSG.  It means
>> they can say "look individuals are represented in the system", yet
>> because many individual domain owners also have some comercial
>> interest they will be limited in their scope.
>> 
>>      cya,    Andrew...
>> 
>> PS: whats the big problem with voting?  why not just have a list vote?
>

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders and growing, 
strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"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]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
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
Phone: 214-244-4827