Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

Thank you for continuing this thread.  Those capable of producing signal
rather than noise can at least do so from time to time even if
it is a repeat of what has been said in vain for the last 15 years.

It is simple to break the vicious circle. The Board adopts, say, the
proposals of Carl Bildt or any other good compromise proposal that gives
real representation and voting power to those who make this whole
registration circus possible and gives them a real say in what happens with
their money and how they are protected from the sleazier parts of the MLM 
industry that ICANN has
facilitated.
The organization will be financed with the registrants' own money, that is:
from the ICANN budget.

Watch how this list will transform into the most read list in ICANN-land!
Watch how good ideas and constructive criticism will back up election
campaigns for the representatives.
Watch a trans-border political entity come alive with a voice that speaks to
global internet policy makers, in ICANN and in treaty organizations.

You lament that nobody picks up the cross any more.
One of the problems with finding the thankless representatives to put their
shoulders under this task is that the orginal supporters and "activists"
have been thoroughly discouraged and that ICANN has now lost the credibility 
that is
needed to attract new blood.

Are you really surprised that there is no animo for this work if you have to
pay your own way and in the end get "stink for thanks" (translated from 
Dutch)?
ICANN could solve this if it wanted to.

It is not a matter of " .. no willingness by registrants to get
themselves organized " , but a matter of a lack of prospect that this 
self-organization will result in anything other than a bigger fig leaf for 
ICANN.
And, as you say, it is the (prospective) result that counts.


Joop


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:46 AM
Subject: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant


> 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