ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

  • To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=KfhsG4vgF/Gxs+d0NaB+VtF8IDfG1ShvaKkvogI5mqxzUz5z+VH5yKHV/yKWz7N2/tKLflqWCMqkgahx1Dlm8W/fbYHCBUdRAZWNadhVze41eaCKn/6jfa2birtMuVIHU1hD+eDW85pDk3HxzGT3eGzzXu9UhgeACUhfeG6fl8U=;
  • In-reply-to: <46789213.6060302@cavebear.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And so I wonder. What can be done at this level?
  Probably, and historically, nothing much.
  We can all individually comment and let that flutter in the wind or we can do a collective approach.
   
  Eric

Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Danny Younger 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

I read it. It continues the ICANN tradition of creating its own taxonomy of 
interests and putting people into boxes inside boxes.

Let's see ... it suggests several kinds of constituencies for individual people 
- people who act as non-commercial agents, people who act as academics, people 
who act as ... you get the point.

And it blandly says "gee, ICANN has always allowed new constituencies" - the 
truth of that is belied by the treatment of ICANN when it refused to consider 
the IDNO, the constituency for individual domain name owners.

And yet, after all of the report's micro-division of individuals, it does not 
make a similar dissection of commercial interests - there is not a constituency 
into which to put companies with green logos and companies incorporated in 
Alabama, etc.

Why are commercial interests once again given a free ride while individuals are 
chopped up into pieces? Might I suggest that certain commercial interests like 
the stability they get from a policy of "divide and conquer".

The report fails to recognize the logical conclusion of its strategy of 
micro-dissection: One constituency for each and every person. In which case 
why the constituency mechanism at all?

Nor does the report consider sunsets on existing constituencies, particularly 
those established by fiat at ICANN's start.

Overall it is a pretty weak report. It continues the ICANN tradition of 
evading meaningful participation by people and elevating the participation of 
commercial aggregates.

Corporatism.

--karl--




       
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>