RE: [ga] significant user representation

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

  Very interesting Danny. Your points a well made and backed up with stats and proof.
  The passion is there of course, however you slipped on a logical point. 
  Weight should not be given based upon the speaker of a point but rather the point bears weight.
  Over the years Chuck has made great points even though he speaks as a corporate mouthpiece. 2030 years ago Country lost the now USA because they made the error of scuffaughing who the various speakers represented rather than acknowledgin some truths to be self evident.
   
  We should have representation but we do not. If Chuck says that ICANN is representative of any group but their own, he is lying, nothing against Chuck, but truth is truth no matter who says it.
   
  e

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Hello Chuck,

re: "trying to evaluate the level of
representativeness of any individual or group putting
forth views is useful" 

According to the year 2000 census, in the United
States we have 6,773,632 business establishments with
a payroll (averaging 16 people each). When Ms.
Marilyn Cade speaks as the North American
representative from the ICANN Business Constituency,
are you really of the belief that she represents the
views of these 6.7 million U.S. businesses plus all
the businesses in Canada? 

Let's put aside these tedious considerations of
"representativeness" and focus instead on the relative
merits of the arguments being put forth. 

When new policy is proposed there are two primary
parties to the debate: ICANN Staff (that has
formulated the new policy usually without the benefit
of GNSO guidance) and the parties impacted by the
proposal. 

What we should be asking is whether there is a need
for a new policy that outweighs the concerns of those
most impacted by a policy proposal. I believe that
the burden of proof should rest upon the shoulders of
those that seek to establish a new policy.

If registries believe that registry pricing
considerations are outside the scope of Consensus
Policy, then they should be forced to make their case.
The ICANN Board should then evaluate the merits of
that case in light of its potential impact and in view
of the comments of those most affected. 

If you wish to assign relative weight to the arguments
put forth, let it be on the basis of whether the
authors are members of a group that stands to be
impacted should a proposed new policy become a reality.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


 				
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.