Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

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

Karl and all,

  I think we already have, and have had for so many years now
what you suggest right here in the GA.  I see little need
for yet another similar different entity.  What is needed
is for the GA to be re-recognized and expanded upon a bit
as to it's structure.

  The present 'Constituency' model of ICANN is and always has
been designed to fragment particular interest groups and IMO
has in the doing so, not served ICANN and especially the GNSO
well.  But yet such a model/structure does give the largest
interest groups far greater opportunity to dominate what policies
will be adopted or considered.  And history has proven that
to be the case, sometimes for the better and sometimes not,
as all whom have been paying attention have all too readily
seen and too many have negatively and unjustly/unfairly 
experienced. So what we end up with is not what is the better
policy or practice, but whom is proposing same.  As a result
we are now more and more seeing Governments stepping up to
take charge to a great degree, which the self governance
of ICANN was to a great degree intended and supposed to 
avoid.  Didn't or isn't happening for many already and
frequently repeatedly stated reasons... 


-----Original Message-----
>From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 16, 2010 7:39 PM
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: 'GNSO GA Mailing List' <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA  irrelevant
>
>
>On 05/15/2010 05:40 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>> If is the case that Registrants *are* a logical constituency, and I believe
>> it is, it should not be very difficult to write a charter following the
>> instructions on the url above. If there is no proposal, the Board cannot
>> approve it. It reminds me a famous italian joke about a guy that was asking
>> San Gennaro for a miracle.
>
>I'm not familiar with that joke .. (that's a slight nudge to get you to 
>tell us. ;-)
>
>(I imagine you reading this having a cup of good coffee while enjoying 
>the kind of nice spring weather we are having here on the edge of the 
>Pacific.)
>
>Getting down to business..
>
>I don't see any reason why one would not consider those who acquire 
>domain names any less a logical constituency than those who sell domain 
>names (indeed, ICANN has two flavors of constituency for those who sell 
>names - registries and registrars).  And indeed it would seem that those 
>who acquire domain names are arguably more entitled to constituency 
>status than are those who are indirectly affected by domain names, such 
>as intellectual property holders or ISPs or businesses that may or may 
>not even have domain names.
>
>There *have* been very concrete proposals for domain name holders to 
>obtain formalized status within ICANN's structures.  The old IDNO 
>proposal was fairly concrete and fully encompassed every natural person 
>who had control of a domain name.  (Even corporate ownership was 
>recognized through the recognition of named people with a corporate 
>structure who had authority within that corporation of a degree that one 
>could say "that person is the owner".)
>
>The problem is that ICANN generally treats such proposals as unimportant 
>or flippant and thus drains their ability to obtain backing and momentum.
>
>The board of directors of ICANN need not wait for a concrete proposal; 
>rather it could write a simple resolution that recognizes that domain 
>name registrants appear under-represent within ICANN, expresses a 
>corporate desire to remedy that under-representation, and says that it 
>desires concrete proposals, each accompanied by a roster of supporters, 
>to be submitted for board consideration by such-and-such a date.
>
>               --karl--

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