Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all,

  I happen to agree with Danny here.  We have seen this sing-song,
ding-dong before.  Last time as I recall, was when Stuart Lynn
replaced Mike Roberts as ICANN CEO.  "Black hole" eMail
addresses which ICANN has set up to give the appearance of
community input have shown to be nearly useless and largely
ignored/never read.  But at least it's politically correct, eh?

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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

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