RE: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just a few quick answers.

George:

> From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> Since the changes 
> to the GNSO structure, proposed by the GNSO Review WG and the 
> SIC, have been approved by the Board, there is the concrete 
> possibility of creating a constituency for registrants. 
> Creation of new constituencies has even been encouraged last year.
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention the total number of new constituencies 
> that have been created since that time. Let me help you. The 
> total number was....*drumroll*......wait for it..........you 
> know what it is.......oh, the suspense is killing me........
> 
> Yes....it must be.....
> 
> Zero! 

You are absolutely right. I have lost time and money for nothing, as the
door that has been opened for registrant has not been used.
I have learned that you can bring the camel to the water, but cannot oblige
him to drink.
Rest assured that I will not do the same mistake again.



> [...] It's funny reading Roberto's bio at ICANN:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/biog/gaetano.htm
> 
> "He served as one of the first chairs of the DNSO General 
> Assembly and has focused his efforts in recent years on 
> bringing to life a constituency for individual users and registrants."

That bio was written to present the new Board members when they have been
elected, so it is roughly 6.5 years old.
Of course, were I asked to write a bio now, it would contain different
things.


> [...]
> Since Roberto ducked last week's direct questions:
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg03949.html
> 
> about the Ombudsman, here's another chance. Why isn't the 
> Board reviewing the performance of the Ombudsman? It's a 
> tough question, yes, but important.

As you correctly title in your original message, this is a question for
Frank Fowlie and for the ICANN Board. I am neither the Ombudsman nor a Board
member.


> 
> Or, would you be more likely to answer if we lobbed a few 
> softballs, like what kind of food one can expect in Colombia 
> at the ICANN feasts, or what the thread count will be of the 
> hotel sheets at ICANN board private retreats (ICANN Board 
> Slogan = "More Retreats Than the French Army") will be?

Having noticed the level of debate in the GA lately, I would not be
surprised to see these as actual questions asked seriously.

 
Sotiris:

> 
> Yes, Roberto, please answer Andy's question and then please 
> revisit my question on SPECIFICS: How must registrants 
> organize themselves in a manner that will be acceptable to 
> ICANN? Will ICANN fund a voting mechanism, for instance?

I am surprised by these questions.
The way to petition for the formation of a constituency is on ICANN's web
site, the fact that you do not know it is speaking volumes.
About the voting mechanism, first of all to vote for what? If you are
speaking about election of the to-be registrants constituency officers or
representatives, isn't that a bit premature considering that you have not
discussed yet a charter for the constituency? And if it is a voting for
something else, isn't it out of scope for a discussion on registrant
constituency?

Anyway, as I wrote in a previous message, things are happening, policy
decisions are being made in this very moment, while you choose to play in
this sandbox. This reminds me of a famous painting of Magritte. See
http://d1nny.livejournal.com/186195.html.

Cheers,
Roberto