Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rod and all,

  A good idea, maybe.  With 4 out of 20+ normally active
GA participants is hardly even "rough consensus" however.

  We really need to get the GA re-established if ANY kind
of  "consensus" will be recognized.

Next would be a users constituency, and at the same time
a Registrants constituency.

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

>   I think drafting a petition to self-organize an "Individual's
> Constituency" is a good idea given some of the content of the BGC WG
> working draft document.  It appears that at least 4 people on this
> list have affirmed that a petition is a good idea; that probably is
> enough of a "rough consensus" of active participants to get started.
> Yes?
>
> Rod
>
>
> Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:02 AM, 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