[ga] 1. thru 10 discussion matrix

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent Questions Danny and well worth examining here and everywhere.  I am 
going to do something a little whacky here. I am going to address them one by 
one in posts to follow. I will adjust into threads as I already did. I like the 
symmetry so I will keep the numbers. Clearly in your agenda and bias, which we 
all have you posed to problems that are evident.  Why would registrants want a 
constituency rather than a directly voted seat on the councils and boards?  And 
why did you leave out individual representation that is not tied to 
registration but to Human Rights.

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Eric,

Perhaps you might want to give some thought to a few important matters -- 
here's a short list:

1.  we continue to have ongoing violations of inter-registrar transfer 
consensus policy by GoDadddy (through their 60-day lock upon WHOIS change) in 
spite of the April 2008 Advisory on the topic.
1. continuing inter-registrar transfer violations 4/08 Advisory
2.  there is a need to establish a process to appoint an at-large director
2. At-large director appointment - when and how
3.  there remains a need for ongoing discussion regarding the proposed URS 
take-down mechanism
3. URS Takedown - right/wrong   how/when
4.  The UDRP has never been revised
4. UDRP revisions - success & failure examples/proof
5.  The "open-the-floodgates" approach to new gTLDs is not a prudent policy
5. gTLDs to limit/restrict or Liaises fa ire
6.  The ability of the Compliance Department to properly scale in light of a 
new TOLD roll-out is at issue when they obviously can't manage their current 
responsibilities.
6. Compliance Department or Not - effectiveness & management
7.  The ED DP requires registrars to post on their website the actual fees 
charged to registered name holders for recovering domain names that are in GP.  
Close to 500 registrars are in default of their obligations.
7. EDDP & the RGP practical or superfluous
8.  We still have no registrants constituency in the GNSO
8. Registrants representation
9.  The registry/registrar vertical integration discussion is far from concluded
9. Monopolistic vertical registry to registrar models
10.  There is no GNSO-approved policy regarding proxy registrations.
10. Lack of GNSO effective registration policy






--- On Thu, 9/24/09, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ga] George is being used.  It's time to close down this list.
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "ChuckGomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "George Kirikos" 
> <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 9:56 PM
> Just what we need.  Less
> voice for individuals and more of a voice for
> constituents.  And maybe we could make all the
> constituents require all participants to vote democrat in
> the US. Or socialist in Italy.  And maybe we could then
> require them to pay a fee and be born with a pedigree from
> royalty or have an accounting degree.  The restrictions
> on individual participation are endless, and ICANN won't
> need to do it, they can have George and Chuck do it.
>  
> But first lets give the GA list some voting mechanisms
> and say it was all because of George and so we support his
> election.  How often have we seen this scenario. 
> But first they attack all of us who decent and say we are
> not people or we just do this because we are mentally
> unfit.
> 
> --- On Thu, 9/24/09, George Kirikos
> <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ga] George was right. It's time to close
> down this list.
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "ChuckGomes"
> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 1:52 PM
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- On Thu, 9/24/09, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > I would George if it can be effectively
> > designed and I think it can.  As chair of the
> GNSO
> > Operations Steering Committee I will forward your
> message to
> > the Communications work team because it fits into
> their
> > tasks well.  In fact, it may already be on their
> > agenda. 
> 
> Thanks Chuck. I don't believe it would be very
> difficult. One would set the mailing list options in
> majordomo (or mailman, or other list management programs) to
> not automatically approve new subscribers, but instead hold
> them in a moderation queue. Each constituency would be able
> to have someone in the moderation queue (moderation just for
> subscriptions, not for each actual post!), and that person
> could verify whether a new subscriber was a constituency
> member. If so, they'd approve that new subscriber.
> 
> One could have a separate
>  process for "special" people, e.g. former Board
> members, etc. (are Vint Cerf or Esther Dyson still following
> ICANN?) who wish to stay involved or at least stay
> subscribed.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.leap.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>