Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joop,

In my estimation the Board Governance Committee
doesn't have the balls to instigate meaningful reform.

They sat on the LSE Report for a full year without
taking any action and have now released an ICANN Staff
document (written with the assistance of Miriam
Sapiro) that documents their ongoing lassitude by
posing pointless "questions" at a time when
answers/leadership should instead have been
forthcoming.

It is clear to me that the BGC has only a very few
consensus points:

(1)  Unlike the PSO, they can't get rid of the GNSO.
(2)  They won't do anything until Vint formally
retires.
(3)  They recognize the need for additional
constituencies but haven't yet determined exactly
which arguments they will put forward to once more
prevent the formation of an individuals constituency 
(as they believe that such a constituency will serve
to aggregate those known for their vitriolic invective
against the Board).  
(4)  They understand that the GNSO Policy Development
process sucks and they're tired of hearing the same
old hackneyed phrases from a sorry set of warhorses
that should have been put out to pasture years ago,
but they still don't have a plan to deal with the
situation.

I further believe that we can expect Vittorio to again
come up with a wide range of ridiculous ideas that
once more will engender no community-wide buy-in that
will be pitched to us in the weeks ahead.

What is missing in the whole equation is the
following:

When the RegisterFly debacle unfolded and Paul Twomey
publicly called for necessary revisions to the RAA as
a proper way forward, who stood up and defended the
rights of the registrant community?  Not one single
constituency in the GNSO asked for an Issues Report
(even though they all understand that the RAA can only
be changed on the basis of Consensus Policy
agreements).  Not one single RALO discussed policy
changes that would better serve the registrant
interest.  Neither did the ALAC itself call for an
Issues Report.

The only people that stood up for the impacted
community were Paul Twomey and his staff, and members
of this GA list.  

I agree that a constituency needs to be formed so that
amongst our peers we can act to better protect the
registrant community (since no else is standing up to
defend their interests), but I don't agree that we
should use labels such as Individual Domain Name
Owners or Registrants to define or name the
constituency.  Those names have too much baggage
associated with them.

Ultimately, the constituency is us -- we that are
already on this list and those that will voluntarily
subscribe to the GA list with a commitment to work on
GNSO DNS issues.

We've been here since day one. We aren't about to
disappear.  So let's call us what we are -- a
constituency comprised of GA list members that seeks
to petition the board for recognition as a GNSO
constituency.  We already have a structure, and we
have elected officers.  What we have is sufficient for
our needs and we will require no ICANN funding.

I am willing to work on a draft petition if others
agree.






--- Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> At 11:05 a.m. 20/06/2007, you wrote:
> >This disclaimer is just too broad. I gather no one
> has any position on 
> >anything at this time.
> >Oh well.
> >Eric
> 
> Eric,
> 
> They want recommendations and conclusions from us.
> They say that nothing 
> has been cast in stone yet, although, of course, if
> you don't move your 
> feet , the cement will harden into a new structure
> and the representation 
> of the at large stakeholders will be provided
> top-down. (with all the 
> negative long-term consequences for ICANN and the
> hapless "representatives")
> 
> "Oh, well"  is not the best answer.
> 
> My recommendation is that the ICANN Board now take
> the initiative to invite 
> Individual Domain Name Owners to form a recognized
> GNSO constituency,  its 
> funding provided for in the 2007 and 2008 budget and
> its internal democracy 
> supervised by the ombudsman and a committee of 3
> (elected) Board members.
> 
> My conclusions are suspended until this happens.
> 
> Is there anyone here who  supports that?
> 
> >Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >The Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review
> Working
> >Group has released a "Draft Working Document on
> GNSO
> >Improvements" that presents the Working Group's
> >initial thinking on, and raises questions about,
> how
> >to improve the GNSO, for discussion with Community
> at
> >the upcoming ICANN Meeting in San Juan and for
> public
> >comment through the ICANN website. This working
> draft
> >does not reach any definitive recommendations or
> >conclusions at this time. It is posted to encourage
> >further public discussion and comment, and it does
> not
> >represent the position of the Working Group, the
> Board
> >Governance Committee, or the Board.
> >19 June 2007
> >
>
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jun07.htm
> >
> >key document: 
>
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/draft-wg-bgc-gnso-improvements-18jun07.pdf
> >
> 
> --Joop--
> http://www.pollingbooth.info/generalassemblysignup/
> www.icannatlarge.com
> www.democracy.org/idno
> 
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222