Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker and all,

  A collective approach would be best if we, the GA "Collectively" could

come up with a written response AND a actual course of
actual action and/or set of actions.  However I don't see that
happening.  It takes allot of $$ to get actions effected, and the
GA doesn't have any, nor does it have a means by which it
can or will raise any either  presently.  How sad...

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    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--
>
>
>
>
>

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