Re: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting

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

Dominik and all,

  It would be a good thing to have an IRC [ Individual Registrant
Constituency ] which should have been a part of the old DNSO,
and the GNSO from the beginning.  However other constituencies
at that time were against such a constituency and the than seated
ICANN Bod agreed, hence no IRC.  Several attempts have been
made, including the ill fated IDNO, which thankfully became defunct
due to irregular and questionable activities.  We surely don't
want to repeat that experience.  The biggest problem is that any
Individual Registrant Constituency must be self funded which is
yet another reason why such a constituency has not come into being.

  What perhaps even more important is that the GA be reinstated
with representation on the GNSO council instead of only a "Liaison"
whom cannot reasonably, and never did represent the GA members.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders 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
My Phone: 214-244-4827

Dominik Filipp wrote:

> Agreed Joop, the message should be read in positive sense. And as the
> next step the concept of Individual Registrants Constituency should come
> to life as an official body representing the interests of
> users/stakeholders within the ICANN organization. I do not see anything
> wrong with that.
>
> Dominik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Joop Teernstra
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:59 AM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting
>
> At 02:08 p.m. 18/01/2008, Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:
> >Hi Jeff,
> >
> >I posted this info to the list because I believe it is important for
> >people to know who claims to be representing registrant interests.
>
> Ted,
>
> If you truly find that important, then why not back a structure where
> such representatives can be properly filtered and elected?
>
> Instead of kicking over the  delusional strawman, isn't it better to
> heed the message : lacking a proper representational structure, a Bill
> of Registrant Rights is indeed the next best thing registrants could
> hope for.
>
> Don't you agree, Roberto?
>
> -joop-