ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [ga] GA contribution

  • To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] GA contribution
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:11:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR>
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Mr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P>&nbsp; As the GA by your and Debbies own desire is <STRONG>not </STRONG>a 
decision making body within</P>
<P>ICANN's GNSO&nbsp;it seems nearly a total waste of time for members to 
consider doing</P>
<P>very much in depth work for the GA to end up with a submissible proposal</P>
<P>for consideration as a consensus or even a rough consensus draft proposal</P>
<P>to the GNSO or directly to the ICANN Bod.&nbsp; </P>
<P>&nbsp; Secondly, as the GA has only at most 206 subscribers and maybe as 
many as</P>
<P>12 active subscribers. As such, &nbsp;for the GNSO or the ICANN bod to 
consider proposals</P>
<P>from the GA as being very broad based would be far less than realistic or</P>
<P>even reasonable.</P>
<P>&nbsp; So as has been the case for a number of years now, the problem is one 
<P>structure and process, not one of the ability or lack of good or 
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker 
<HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 9:47 AM <BR>To: Danny Younger 
<DANNYYOUNGER@xxxxxxxxx>, GA <GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: Re: [ga] GA 
contribution <BR><BR>
<DIV>After further review - - My point still stands. The GA should give a GA 
contribution on this. It was not hard to read the entire archives at 
<DIV>The only IU/IDNH voices were crying in the wind. </DIV>
<DIV>Actually I think we could take the principals laid out in yours' and 
Karls' contribution, add to them, take into consideration Ruiz, Nevitt and 
&nbsp;Stahura. And then try to submit a comment that has some backing from our 
community. We do not have to rehash all the old arguments just get to the core 
and add evolving concept. The key new attribute of the comments would be that 
they have reasonable backing and popular support.</DIV>
<DIV>We have to&nbsp;stop being dissatisfied with&nbsp;putting our individual 
comments out there all by ourselves. It is not necessarily reasonable to expect 
that they be given full accord in that format.&nbsp;I am not suggesting ceasing 
contributing to the differeing forums but rather including work with the GA to 
get something accomplished.</DIV>
<DIV><B><I>Danny Younger &lt;dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; 
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Eric,<BR><BR>The ICANN Staff rationale for this 
negotiated<BR>settlement was already announced two weeks ago on 
the<BR>Registrars list -- 
 really a lousy decision between two parties that<BR>fails to address the 
issues raised earlier by Tim Ruiz<BR>and Jon Nevett -- see their comments 
at<BR>http://forum.icann.org/lists/museum-renewal-2007/<BR><BR>Staff simply 
took out the word "register" in an effort<BR>to placate the registrars, and 
reduced the number of<BR>names "under direct management" by 1000 -- 
nothing<BR>more than cosmetic surgery on the earlier proposed<BR>contract 
language.<BR><BR>The result of this agreement is already in conflict<BR>with 
Recommendation 19 in the new gTLDs GNSO Report:<BR>"Registries must use only 
ICANN accredited registrars<BR>in registering domain names" (although, in my 
view,<BR>it's a really stupid recommendation that probably<BR>violates 
antitrust laws anyway). <BR><BR>Karl Auerbach also makes a good point 
regarding<BR>modifications to current registry contracts; his<BR>comment is 
Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; This contribution from 
the community lacks our<BR>&gt; input. We have a 30 day comment window on 
this<BR>&gt; agreement. Is there anyone interested in leading a<BR>&gt; group 
to formulate our contribution.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; Eric<BR>&gt; as Chair<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>======= 
<BR><BR>'Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 
277k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest 
freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the 
performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - 
Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and 
the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied 
by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll 
Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 
 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. 
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good 
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail 

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