Re: [ga] GA irrelevant

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

So nice to hear from all of you and especially Ken and Debbie.  Wow twelve 
years?!! Feels like just last century ;-)
 
No reasonable man or fine woman would even suggest that this List is the cause 
of a general malaise and frustration in the ICANN community, of those not hired 
or appointed.
 
Probably even the banter of late regarding alternatives to ICANN based systems 
is reflective of a twelve year lack of progression toward individual and 
registrant participation. Right about twelve years ago Karl was "elected" and 
that was the extent of fulfilling a bottom up agenda as proposed by the green 
and white papers and our "saint Postel".
 
But what is truly amazing is that we are still here. Not the way we want it, no 
formal acknowledgement, no structure and constantly interrupted and censored. 
Last we heard from Beckwhatever was that D. Michawhatever was in charge of us 
because we fell under the At-Large debacle. At least when our good member and 
cantankorous friend Avri was around we had a reasonable account of motions and 
attributes from the d or is it G NSO.
As a matter of fact Ken and Jeff and Kent and Roberto and I have been around 
longer than the At-Large or the GNSO.
 
In the 80's women and minorities coined a term "empowerment" now it is generic 
and all with any cognitive issues use it. Shrinks will tell you that it is a 
true testament to anyone to have a healthy level of self esteem without 
empowerment. So it is no wonder the GA list exhibits some antisocial activity.
 
But I note that none of our esteemed visitors in the last week have brought up 
any real issues. Below is a list that may help you to contribute, unless of 
course you were just excercising your right to criticize without positive 
contribution.
 
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 Laissez faire
6.  The ability of the Compliance Department to properly scale in light of a 
new TLD roll-out is at issue when they obviously can't manage their current 
responsibilities.
6. Compliance Department or Not - effectiveness & management
7.  The EDDP requires registrars to post on their website the actual fees 
charged to registered name holders for recovering domain names that are in 
RGP.  Close to 500 registrars are in default of their obligations.
7. EDDP & the RGP practical or superfluos
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 Wed, 4/28/10, Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ga] GA irrelevant
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 4:53 PM



Dear Roberto,

I agree with you that it is a shame how the GA has become irrelevant.

However, the activity of the remaining posters on this list and its poor 
signal/noise ration is a symptom of this, not the cause.

Those who have actively resisted registrant representation should accept the 
symptoms and side-effects of incapacitating  at-large stakeholders.

Do you have a proposal to make the GA more relevant again in ICANN policy 
setting?


Joop


----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:


> 
> Sotiris,
> You are, as often happens, right in asking for moderation. However, I do not
> feel, personally, tha this is the main issue.
> Filters can go a long way in eliminating noise, but they cannot create
> signal: the problem of this list, the way I see it, is not excessive noise,
> but lack of signal.
> There are lots of things going on, that are *really* related to domain name
> policy, but nothing of value is happening here. The GA has become
> irrelevant, and that's a shame.
> Regards,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2010 23:17
>> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ga] Re:
>> 
>> 
>> Dare I recommend some moderation?
>> 
>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>> 
>> >
>> > Ken Stubbs wrote:
>> >
>> > I have been a subscriber to this list for almost 12 years
>> now and have
>> > recently seen the list value diminsh significantly
>> (primarily because
>> > of threads like this one)..
>> >
>> > Its sad to see a forum for
>> > discussion, (purportedly ICANN related), degenerate to this level.
>> >
>> > Hopefully subscribers can still find some value in it, but, I am
>> > rapidly losing hope that this is possible..
> 
>