ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

  • To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements
  • From: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:04:56 -0400
  • Cc: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <54878.42314.qm@web52906.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
  • References: <54878.42314.qm@web52906.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)

Hugh Dierker wrote:

I have given this proposition reasonable time. I have noticed many posting since this mailing.
I have specifically noted 0 posts in opposition.
There has been some discussion regarding making the constituency exclusively an IDNO versus an all inclusive Individual Users constituency.


Sounds like the Inclusive NameSpace :) Let's see if it gets off the ground. A place thats inclusive of everyone within the constructs of icann. I'm all for it. I'm willing t try.

regards
joe baptista

Let us have some pointed discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of having either.
Eric


*/"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:

    I think drafting a petition to self-organize an "Individual's
    Constituency" is a good idea given some of the content of the BGC
    WG working draft document.  It appears that at least 4 people on
    this list have affirmed that a petition is a good idea; that
    probably is enough of a "rough consensus" of active participants
    to get started. Yes?

    Rod


Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



    On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

    Joop,

    In my estimation the Board Governance Committee
    doesn't have the balls to instigate meaningful reform.

    They sat on the LSE Report for a full year without
    taking any action and have now released an ICANN Staff
    document (written with the assistance of Miriam
    Sapiro) that documents their ongoing lassitude by
    posing pointless "questions" at a time when
    answers/leadership should instead have been
    forthcoming.

    It is clear to me that the BGC has only a very few
    consensus points:

(1) Unlike the PSO, they can't get rid of the GNSO.
(2) They won't do anything until Vint formally
retires.
(3) They recognize the need for additional
constituencies but haven't yet determined exactly
which arguments they will put forward to once more
prevent the formation of an individuals constituency (as they believe that such a constituency will serve
to aggregate those known for their vitriolic invective
against the Board). (4) They understand that the GNSO Policy Development
process sucks and they're tired of hearing the same
old hackneyed phrases from a sorry set of warhorses
that should have been put out to pasture years ago,
but they still don't have a plan to deal with the
situation.


    I further believe that we can expect Vittorio to again
    come up with a wide range of ridiculous ideas that
    once more will engender no community-wide buy-in that
    will be pitched to us in the weeks ahead.

    What is missing in the whole equation is the
    following:

    When the RegisterFly debacle unfolded and Paul Twomey
    publicly called for necessary revisions to the RAA as
    a proper way forward, who stood up and defended the
    rights of the registrant community?  Not one single
    constituency in the GNSO asked for an Issues Report
    (even though they all understand that the RAA can only
    be changed on the basis of Consensus Policy
    agreements).  Not one single RALO discussed policy
    changes that would better serve the registrant
    interest.  Neither did the ALAC itself call for an
    Issues Report.

The only people that stood up for the impacted
community were Paul Twomey and his staff, and members
of this GA list.


    I agree that a constituency needs to be formed so that
    amongst our peers we can act to better protect the
    registrant community (since no else is standing up to
    defend their interests), but I don't agree that we
    should use labels such as Individual Domain Name
    Owners or Registrants to define or name the
    constituency.  Those names have too much baggage
    associated with them.

    Ultimately, the constituency is us -- we that are
    already on this list and those that will voluntarily
    subscribe to the GA list with a commitment to work on
    GNSO DNS issues.

    We've been here since day one. We aren't about to
    disappear.  So let's call us what we are -- a
    constituency comprised of GA list members that seeks
    to petition the board for recognition as a GNSO
    constituency.  We already have a structure, and we
    have elected officers.  What we have is sufficient for
    our needs and we will require no ICANN funding.

    I am willing to work on a draft petition if others
    agree.






--- Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    At 11:05 a.m. 20/06/2007, you wrote:

This disclaimer is just too broad. I gather no one

has any position on


    anything at this time.
    Oh well.
    Eric


    Eric,

They want recommendations and conclusions from us.
They say that nothing has been cast in stone yet, although, of course, if
you don't move your feet , the cement will harden into a new structure
and the representation of the at large stakeholders will be provided
top-down. (with all the negative long-term consequences for ICANN and the
hapless "representatives")


    "Oh, well"  is not the best answer.

My recommendation is that the ICANN Board now take
the initiative to invite Individual Domain Name Owners to form a recognized
GNSO constituency, its funding provided for in the 2007 and 2008 budget and
its internal democracy supervised by the ombudsman and a committee of 3
(elected) Board members.


    My conclusions are suspended until this happens.

    Is there anyone here who  supports that?

    Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
    The Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review

Working

Group has released a "Draft Working Document on

GNSO

    Improvements" that presents the Working Group's
    initial thinking on, and raises questions about,

how

to improve the GNSO, for discussion with Community

at

the upcoming ICANN Meeting in San Juan and for

public

comment through the ICANN website. This working

draft

    does not reach any definitive recommendations or
    conclusions at this time. It is posted to encourage
    further public discussion and comment, and it does

not

represent the position of the Working Group, the

Board

    Governance Committee, or the Board.
    19 June 2007


http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jun07.htm


key document:


    http://www.icann.org/announcements/draft-wg-bgc-gnso-improvements-18jun07.pdf



--Joop-- http://www.pollingbooth.info/generalassemblysignup/ www.icannatlarge.com www.democracy.org/idno






____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222




------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50> on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50>




--
Joe Baptista                                www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (202) 517-1593
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

begin:vcard
fn:Joe Baptista
n:Baptista;Joe
org:PublicRoot Consortium
adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada
email;internet:baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:PublicRoot Representative
tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084 
tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.publicroot.org
version:2.1
end:vcard



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