ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

  • To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:53:32 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=S9kwhKddKKRfhc6YRfKKhCrPzvtbccvtfRSYTpcBDyB1AZh7VjVWb+o3A2G6TftW; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
  • Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Dr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; I believe Karl's approach of a collective response</P>
<P>in the form or some sort of resolution by the GA is in order.&nbsp; If we</P>
<P>fail that, we essentially are showing that we cannot agree on anything</P>
<P>as the GA and are a poor in leadership as the GNSO is, if not</P>
<P>worse.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp; Real leadership required commitment, not just politically correct</P>
<P>speach and/or remarks.</P>
<DIV id=compText><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Jun 20, 2007 9:16 AM <BR>To: Karl Auerbach <KARL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <DANNYYOUNGER@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements <BR><BR>
<DIV>And so I wonder. What can be done at this level?</DIV>
<DIV>Probably, and historically, nothing much.</DIV>
<DIV>We can all individually comment and let that flutter in the wind or we can do a collective approach.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><B><I>Karl Auerbach &lt;karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Danny Younger wrote:<BR>&gt; The Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working<BR>&gt; Group has released a "Draft Working Document on GNSO<BR>&gt; Improvements" that presents the Working Group's<BR>&gt; initial thinking on, and raises questions about, how<BR>&gt; to improve the GNSO<BR><BR>I read it. It continues the ICANN tradition of creating its own taxonomy of <BR>interests and putting people into boxes inside boxes.<BR><BR>Let's see ... it suggests several kinds of constituencies for individual people <BR>- people who act as non-commercial agents, people who act as academics, people <BR>who act as ... you get the point.<BR><BR>And it blandly says "gee, ICANN has always allowed new constituencies" - the <BR>truth of that is belied by the treatment of ICANN when it refused to consider <BR>the IDNO, the constituency for individual domain name owners.<BR><BR>And yet, after all of the report's micro-division of individuals, it does not <BR>make a similar dissection of commercial interests - there is not a constituency <BR>into which to put companies with green logos and companies incorporated in <BR>Alabama, etc.<BR><BR>Why are commercial interests once again given a free ride while individuals are <BR>chopped up into pieces? Might I suggest that certain commercial interests like <BR>the stability they get from a policy of "divide and conquer".<BR><BR>The report fails to recognize the logical conclusion of its strategy of <BR>micro-dissection: One constituency for each and every person. In which case <BR>why the constituency mechanism at all?<BR><BR>Nor does the report consider sunsets on existing constituencies, particularly <BR>those established by fiat at ICANN's start.<BR><BR>Overall it is a pretty weak report. It continues the ICANN tradition of <BR>evading meaningful participation by people and elevating the participation of <BR>commercial aggregates.<BR><BR>Corporatism.<BR><BR>--karl--<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P></P>Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR><BR><!-- --></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BODY>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>