Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I note here the almost uncanny and spookey lack of reference to any list or 
public participation.  To Roberto the public and registrant participation is 
akin to the gypsie to certain folks in the 1940's. I have never seen Roberto 
participate on a list that he was not able to censor. (do not get me wrong, 
Roberto is far too savy to do the censoring himself)

--- On Sun, 5/2/10, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant
To: "'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, May 2, 2010, 1:46 PM



Joop,

> 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.

It is a vicious circle. The poor ratio prevents people with something to say
to come here and say it, and that in turn makes the ratio worse.
It does not matter what is the symptom and what the cause, what matters is
the result.

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

I don't know who do you think are "those".
>From my point of view, I have to say that with the GNSO Review there has
been last year the opportunity to create a representation for Registrants in
the GNSO, something that has been attempted before since the Berlin meeting
10 years before, but that could not happen because of the constituency
structure that meade it difficult for new entrants to join. Since last year
it is possible, and there is no excuse for not using this opportunity.
I am seriously upset, because it has not been at all an easy task, as chair
of the DNSO Review WG, of the Board Review WG, and of the SIC to build a
consensus on a reasonable compromise that would have allowed new
constituencies to come to life.
But that's life, if there is no willingness by registrants to get themselves
organized, it is a fact of life that has to be taken into account.

There is a WG that I am co-chairing now, about vertical integration and
cross-ownership of registries and registrars. There is a lot of debate about
the effect of this on registrants. It is interesting to see how we have
mostly contracted parties talking there about the impact on registrants,
while a lot of registrants prefer to discuss issues in the GA that are
completely orthogonal to ICANN policy making. While we are passionately
following the Dallas-like saga about who is the worst internet crook among
some of the various characters in the GA, policy that is relevant for the
registrars is made elsewhere, in the complete indifference of the GA
members.

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

Not anymore that I have proposals for re-establishing the Roman Empire or to
make Atlantis raise back from the depths of the ocean.

Cheers,
Roberto