Re: [ga] Funding denied

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JFC and all,

  Very good restated point here.  Still many stakeholders/registrants
and
users/non registrants remain underrepresented simply due to the ALAC's
skewed and exclusionary membership rules.  As far as all of our members
are concerned, ICANN's ALAC has been, and remains non legitimate.

JFC Morfin wrote:

>    I can only subscribe to this.
> However, there is a little problem: you have to be accepted by your
> own constituency. If I am correct:
>
> - ALAC is for the organisations of individual users such as ISOC
> Chapters, @large organisations, registrants associations
> - NCDNHC is for non-profit organisations either using the Internet or
> supporting, advocating for users, civil society associations, etc. -
> BC are for commercial users
> - GAC is for governmental users
> - IPC is for trademark owners and consultants
> - ISP is for ISPs
> - gTLD for generic TLDs
> - ccNSO is for ccTLDs having signed something with ICANN
>
> and where do fit the others? What is the appeal capacity for denied
> Members? (I do not think this is in the mission of the ombudsman?)
> Where do National Internet Communities (including ccTLD, Gov,
> Business, ISPs, civil society, @large, etc.) fit?
> Where do non ccNSO ccTLDs fit?
>
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 18:17 15/01/2007, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > this status. From ICANN's point of view, it is a mailing list of
> > > individuals
> > > that have an interest in internet matters. However, there might be
>
> >
> >For the most part, the GA list is a cross constituency list that is
> >open to anybody. There are certainly registrars, registries, business
>
> >constituency members, non-commercial constituency, ALAC and probably
> >members of the ISP and IP participating and/or lurking on the list.
> And
> >even a few Board members read it (not that it has ever led them to
> vote
> >properly, but that's a different issue).
> >
> >As such, there should never be direct funding for GA participants, as
>
> >it's more proper for them to pay their own way or to receive funding
> >from their constituency.
> >
> >Imagine if ICANN had to pay the way for Jeff Williams' "134K members"
>
> >of "INEGroup"? :) ICANN's Budget would soar! Olympic-size stadiums
> >would be needed to hold meetings! Although, perhaps most of those
> >"members" would fit on the head of a pin, perhaps making travel costs
>
> >affordable... ;)
> >
> >Troll jokes aside, perhaps this can be revisited in the future
> if/when
> >the 3 "super constituencies" of the LSE report come into being. At
> that
> >time it may be more appropriate to discuss what resources each of
> those
> >3 constituencies would have to assist its representatives from
> >attending. However, in my opinion it would be better to pick
> locations
> >that are cheaper for visitors to attend, and spending some resources
> on
> >remote participation (WebEx, or other group conferencing with video).
>
> >That might be the best of all possible worlds.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >George Kirikos
> >http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders 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
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827