Re: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee

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

Peter and all my friends,

  I believe but do not want to qualify Danny's thoughts in any
way, that he may have been concerning Independent Registrants,
of those registrants whom are not currently represented by
and Consituency in the GNSO.  BTW it is news to me that
the Business Constituency as you indicate, is a user group.
I was under the impression that the Business Constituency
is Commercial Registrants.  I also did not know that the
Non Commercial Constituency was a user group.

  It therefore appears to even the casual observer, that
actual representation and subsequent presentation to SO's
of Danny's proposal is largely not possible if such is to
to accurately represent andy and all registrants in any
factual way, but I an glad to see that you do recognize
the value of his roughly related proposal.  I would say that
it seems more reasonable and effective at times, that the
Board would be well advised if more direct activity in
policy consideration was forthcoming all be it understandable
that circumventing the SO's has its drawbacks and/or detriments.
Given however that ICANN is supposed to be open and transparent
in accordance to the MOU, it would seem reasonable that the
board interact much more actively and with significant direct interest.
I hope that the NTIA will advise you and the other Board members
of same.


Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> Hello Danny,
>
> On 18/02/2008, at 8:59 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > I write to you prior to the upcoming budget cycle with
> > a proposed solution to enhance ICANN efficiencies.
> >
> > The overarching goal of the ICANN structural and
> > operational review cycle has been to ensure that the
> > ICANN board receive the best possible qualitative and
> > timely advice from members of the community on vexing
> > issues that require an organizational response.
> >
>
> Actually, I don't agree that this is the overarching goal; the board
> does not seek advice from members of the community in this fashion,
> nor for that purpose.
> The policy making and coordinating, which is our major function, is
> done via the SO's.
> The board's interest in that "timely advice" is in seeing that it is
> fed into the policy-making processes, which, as you know, we do not
> want to be happening at the Board.
>
> > While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and
> > supporting organizations whose responsibilities
> > include putting forth the general registrant interest
> > as a part of their duties, the sad reality has been
> > that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a
> > dedicated organizational advocate to spearhead policy
> > development activities.
> >
> > What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus"
> > is upon the needs of the general registrant community
> > whose funds support and drive the ICANN process.
> >
> This may be a useful development.
> I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and
> disadvantages laid out and contested
> between the current user groups ( Business and Non Commercial
> constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large
> I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group,necessarily a
> subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who
> are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in
> particular that you feel are not being served by the current structure?
>
> > Accordingly, I ask you and your peers on the board to
> > consider the establishment of a Registrant Advisory
> > Committee.  The registrant community needs a strong
> > advocate in their corner, and ICANN needs a continued
> > focus on general registrant issues.
> >
>
> I assume that you are limiting this interest group to registrants of
> some, or possibly all gTLDs?
>
> You will know that ccTLD registrants rights are not a matter for the
> ICANN board.
> And, I assume, the smaller chartered TLDs like .museum are not going
> to require this group.
> Nor can I see much intersection with the registrants of .asia or .eu.
>
> I wonder if your real focus should be the registrar contracts?
>
> The real way forward, as you know, is not for a letter to the board
> with an idea, but to set about self forming such a group, to clarify
> its membership, and goals.
> A clear cost benefit analysis is also required - what precisely is
> the harm that this is intended to remedy?
>
> This is the bottom-up process which characterized the formation of
> the existing constituencies
> Once this has some momentum from the ground-up, with greater clarity
> of purpose, we could look at it further.
>
> Regards
>
> Peter
>
> > You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from
> > such a contribution.
> >
> > best regards,
> > Danny Younger
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > ______________
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/
> > newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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