Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

If Joe is for it, that is it.
  I am taking the afternoon off just to begin work on it.
   
  Eric

Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Hugh Dierker wrote:

> 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.


Sounds like the Inclusive NameSpace :) Let's see if it gets off the 
ground. A place thats inclusive of everyone within the constructs of 
icann. I'm all for it. I'm willing t try.

regards
joe baptista

> 
> Let us have some pointed discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of 
> having either.
> 
> Eric
>
> */"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 >> > 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 >>>> > 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. 
> 




-- 
Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (202) 517-1593
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

begin:vcard
fn:Joe Baptista
n:Baptista;Joe
org:PublicRoot Consortium
adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada
email;internet:baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:PublicRoot Representative
tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084 
tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.publicroot.org
version:2.1
end:vcard



 	      
---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.