Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP

[<chris@xxxxxx>]

It's funny you say that Roberto. ICANN eliminated the GA so where can we 
choose that chairperson, have real debate, and do polls that ICANN will pay 
attention to? When there was a GA, there was very very strong public 
consensus on many issues that ICANN ignored entirely. We had working groups. 
We had debates. We had chairpersons. We had consensus. ICANN still chose to 
ignore all of it. So show me ANY proof ICANN listens to the public or the 
GA. SHow me decisions that have been made because of recommendations from 
this list or from the public comments.
When new TLDs were proposed the public comments almost all were for creating 
more tlds. ICANN chose not to do so. When ICANN stole dot biz, public 
consensus was against it, but ICANN stole Leah's TLD anyway. On raising the 
prices for dot com domain names, public consensus was against it. ICANN 
signed the deal with verisign anyway. There are so many examples where there 
has been overwhelming support or nonsupport for something that ICANN went 
the other direction with that to list them all would be time consuming and 
long.
ICANN from the very beginning was to have the initial board for one year, 
then hold elections. Where are those elections Roberto? When will they be 
held? Have I missed them?
Nothing has changed due to bottom up consensus. I ask for examples. Roberto, 
to pretend that ICANN would listen to anyone from the public is just 
completely deceptive on your part or totally naive. Which is it?
Chris McElroy, NameCritic, Inc.
http://mortgageandrealestateblog.com/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <chris@xxxxxx>; "'Ross Rader'" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP


> > Ross the GA doesn't get taken seriously because bottom up
> > consensus means nothing to ICANN or the registries who tell
> > ICANN what to do. It doesn't get taken seriously unless we
> > all agree with what the registries and ICANN BoD members and
> > staff are saying.
> I don't know why others do not take seriously the GA, there might be 
> plenty
> of reasons.
> Mine is simply that I cannot take seriously a group where if four people
> shout louder, affirming there's consensus on something (like for instance
> the elimination altogether of the AGP to fix a problem that is a different
> one) this has to be taken as gospel, even if other people on the same list
> have argued different things.
> To me, you have consensus when there's a debate where people try to 
> converge
> instead of talking past eachother, when there's a chairperson that
> coordinates the debate, and maybe call for straw polls to get the sense of
> the room (in the figured sense), when there's an interaction instead of a
> repetition of the same mantra by a tiny part of the assembly.
> Failing this attempt to get some sort of agreement, there is nothing 
> worthed
> being listened to.
>
> > The fact that it is not taken seriously is solid proof of
> > ICANN failing to meet it's mission altogether.
> And, pray tell, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate the 
> performance
> of the GA?
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto