ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] LSE Report and 3 "superconstituencies", and broader participation

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [ga] LSE Report and 3 "superconstituencies", and broader participation
  • From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=sFSAY/fRCrF72kjjaNK4mYr5iTAFUKhJ6seOy840FAQs8zBZ2168/Hn7yxIp3brnQAfhZMyD2Rnj7kz6iJHw6Ix24N6degqYKtBuNlnUqeIWDnDLHm1snBxZ80r1FuEoyudJg0IFHkE5E6Qy91sn9yp7DeWBvDwgQXx0YUm4hvA= ;
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,

One of the main recommendations of the LSE report is that the GNSO be
reduced from the existing 6 constituencies to 3 "superconstituencies":

1) Registration -- i.e. the registries and registrars; I'd expect lots
of infighting and division in this constituency
2) Business -- i.e. the existing BC, IP and ISP consituencies
3) Civil Society -- non-commercial constituency, individual users,
small domain registrants, ALAC, etc.

I'm undecided whether the above could work. At least from my own
perspective (my company is a BC member), I know that I have great
respect for many in the IP and ISP constituencies, and so to the extent
that Business is better represented in ICANN decision-making, I can see
it as a potential positive. Also, if more folks get involved through
the "Civil Society" constituency, that would be very encouraging. 

Right now, we have people getting involved on an issue-by-issue basis,
e.g. with the recent .biz/info/org debate, with WLS, WHOIS, or with
other single issues,  but then nothing is done to encourage these folks
to *stay* involved. e.g. all the submitted email comments that receive
"confirmation" emails from ICANN should include details on getting more
involved, i.e. links to the GNSO, ALAC, Non-Commercial, Business
Constituency, IP constituency, etc. In other words, there's an
oppportunity for real Outreach to occur that is being squandered.

This doesn't meaning "spamming" the people, however one could include a
standard boilerplate message on the bottom of every announcement page
at ICANN that asks for public comments on how to get more involved
through the GNSO, and similar details (or just a link to an Outreach
webpage) on email confirmation forms, and also perhaps links into ICANN
Announcements  mailing list signup forms, etc. It would just be common
sense to try to convert these people who have taken the initiative to
comment on a single issue, and encourage them them into becoming
long-term participants.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>