Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have given this proposition reasonable time. I have noticed many posting since this mailing.
  I have specifically noted 0 posts in opposition.
   
  There has been some discussion regarding making the constituency exclusively an IDNO versus an all inclusive Individual Users constituency.
   
  Let us have some pointed discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of having either.
   
  Eric

"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
  







 
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
 Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.