Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

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

Joop and all,

  I believe that you, Sotiris and George are essentially
correct in that Registrants as well as users which you failed
to mention *are* logical constituents and that ICANN knows
and has known that.  What I believe that Roberto is suggesting
is something more formal for ICANN *Full* recognition.  

  Personally the GA served this function quite well and still
does even though it combines both Registrants and users whom
are not registrants.  But that's why it was originally known
as a "General Assembly/GA" and perhaps and IMO, should remain so.
However for reason or reasons not well articulated or justified,
the GNSO when transitioned from the old DNSO decided the GA
was no longer "officially recognized".  All without a vote of the
GA members then I might add...  That sort of process IMO is not
reasonably ligitimate and was not at that time either.  Sense
then, to satisfy users whom are not necessarly registrants or may
be as well, the RALO's and ALAC 'revisited' were created.  Neither
has proven to be good alternitives from what most have attested to.
Hence a bottom up, open and transparent ICANN does not actually
exist and never really has.  Very sad and detramental.

  Certainly there is reason to believe or consider that a
Independant Registrant Constituency could or should be formally
recognized by ICANN and the GNSO, if that is what you are seeking
and/or referring to, and I believe is what Roberto was referring to.
I hope Roberto will correct me if I am mistaken? However to expect
the GNSO or the Board to acccept a 'revived/retread' IDNO as such as 
I suspect you are indirectly suggesting, is perhaps, if not certainly, 
asking far too much given the IDNO's sorted and corrupt history. 

  I also 'Think?' what Roberto was referring to and the GNSO will 
be looking for in a Independant Registrant Constituency, would be 
a totally new effort, with a new website, it's own voting software, 
and a statement of principals as well as a means by which members 
can be verified yet keep in tact their personal privacy and 
security, and demonstrate to ICANN's satisfaction after recieving 
the GNSO councils approval that such a constituency is reasonably 
viable and ligitimate before granting ICANN Constituency status/recognition.  
Perhaps here also Roberto or Chuck can correct me if I am off base or 
incorrect here?


-----Original Message-----
>From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 14, 2010 3:26 AM
>To: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA  irrelevant
>
>
>Roberto,
>
>Your reply to Sotiris only reached me through his response, but I cannot 
>leave it uncommented.
>
>>> 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.
>
>The whole problem is that ICANN even asks for a renewed "petition to form a 
>constituency".
>
>Registrants *are* a logical constituency , much more so than, say, the IP 
>"constituency", and ICANN knows this, but does not want to let its Board 
>formally acknowledge it.
>
>George and Sotiris are right about the further hoops organizers have to jump 
>though.
>
>You did not answer my question  about how to motivate prospective 
>representatives in the face of the massive existing demotivation of having 
>to try this all over again and for no real result.
>
>Joop
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:37 PM
>Subject: RE: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Roberto, the only volume it is speaking is "Don Quixote" and you know that
>> already.
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> How about voting for a bootstrap Chair/Committee to form the nucleus of an
>> RC, which could formulate a charter that might have a chance at passing
>> muster as a serious effort?
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> How did you know I was a Magritte fan?
>>
>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>>
>> 
>
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