Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joop and all,

  You know better that only results count.  Good
and healthy process will amost always return good
results.  ICANN hasn't consistantly had, or now has
a Good and Healthy process.  Ergo, all too frequently
results turn out less than what they can or should be,
and/or are poor.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 3, 2010 5:04 AM
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA  irrelevant
>
>
>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
>>
>>
>>
>
Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders and growing, 
strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827