Re: [ga] RE: GA irrelevant

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think that we should plug away and remain. I have known many here for over a 
decade.  When an issue presents itself that folks want to rally behind they 
will and our existing dormant protocol will be ready. Usually miracles come in 
the form or response to a critical mass crisis, not simply for the lottery.

--- On Wed, 5/26/10, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA  irrelevant
To: "GNSO GA Mailing List" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 5:25 AM


Hi,

As always, you are asking for the miracle.  And I think that is good.

I see the miracle as coming in two flavors:

1. The GA actually organizes itself into a rational and functional group, one 
that has a structure and can actually produce coherent comments on the issues 
in ICANN.  Such a group would make its own niche and if it really proved its 
worth it could eventually get a seat at the table.  I certainly don't think 
this group in its current form deserves any seats anywhere.  But maybe with 
work and a miracle  it could.

2. If the GNSO was reorganized to include a fifth stakeholder group - 
individual registrants.

Then again, does the GA want to only comment on GNSO issues?  Hasn't the field 
of interest grown beyond just the gTLD topics?  does anyone care about the 
treatment of ccTLD registrants?  does this group have opinions on global 
omnibus DNS-certs being created in ICANN?  is the GA concerned about IDN and 
especially synchronized IDNs whether they be G of cc or ...?  what about the 
campaign to force people to evangelize IPv6? AOC and comments for the review 
teams?

If GA is going to work toward a miracle, it might be better off orienting 
itself toward becoming a real rational functional force in itself.  It could 
happen, miracles do happen.

a.


On 26 May 2010, at 04:52, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On 05/25/2010 09:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Non commercial registrants don't need a miracle.  The Noncommercial
>> Stakeholder Group (NCSG) already allows for individual noncommercial
>> registrants to apply for membership.
> 
> It's easy to box those legal fictions known as "corporations" and 
> "associations" and "partnerships" into commercial (or not) boxes - that's 
> because their formation and legal existence is premised on their engagement 
> in economic activities.
> 
> But human registrants don't fit nicely into the "commercial" and 
> "non-commercial" buckets.  We people simultaneously bathe in the stream of 
> commerce and the stream of non-commercial life.
> 
> It's rather Procrustean to cut and stretch us in order to fit us onto ICANN's 
> "non-commercial" iron bed.
> 
> For example, my "cavebear.com" is used by me for both commercial and 
> non-commercial purposes.  I am just as much at home in ICANN's commercial 
> groups as in the non-commercial ones.
> 
> And one's activities may change their color over time - for instance things 
> like Google started out as non-commercial experiments by individual people.
> 
> (By-the-way, I agree with Roberto that the burden of moving forward is on the 
> aspirants to form the new group.  I was just suggesting that ICANN's board 
> give a nod of encouragement.)
> 
>     --karl--
> 
>