Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert - stay focused. Your opinion of the GA is irrelevant. The GA is
currently dysfunctional due to the actions of ICANN. As an ICANN director I
remind you have only yourselves to blame for refusing us our right under our
rules to a vote. The failure of the GA is a reflection of ICANN policy and
nothing else.

We need less fluff on the GA and more substance. Pass the message on up
Roberto.

cheers
joe baptista

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/