Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

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

I understand Joop's point about stakeholders and I agree with him.   
It's possible, however, that pursuing an "Individual's Constituency,"  
which includes individual domain name holders, is more pragmatic than  
pursuing an IDNO constituency given the proposed GNSO Improvements.  
The working group draft proposes creating three or four broad  
Stakeholder Groups made up of one or more specific constituencies  
from the self-formed stakeholder constituencies that have common  
interests. In other words, it is likely that individual's and  
individual domain name holder constituencies would be combined anyway  
for purposes of voting within the GNSO.  If there is support for  
these combined constituencies within the GNSO now, it makes sense  
that we self-organize a more inclusive individual user's constituency.

Rod




Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org



On Jun 25, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Hugh Dierker wrote:

> 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.