Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Rod,

What has been proposed is a feeble effort to disguise
the fact that ICANN needs to merge the BC-IPC-ISPCP. 
The "broad stakeholder groups" (umbrellas) make no
sense when you realize that registries and registrars
will not be combined under a single umbrella. 
Instead, registries will remain a single constituency
as will the registrars (and now they need to figure
out what to do with the NCUC since they don't have
proper weighting for whatever Council voting approach
they will invariably adopt).

The LSE recommended establishing a register of all
GNSO members.  If GNSO membership will be recorded,
then I tend to favor completely dispensing with
constituencies and using a one-man-one vote approach
whenever voting is required (action by plebiscite).

The rest of the time, I will be comfortable with the
concept of fluid or dynamic coalitions that come
together (or fall apart) on an ad-hoc basis to either
support or oppose whatever policy recommendations may
be under discussion.

A formal constituency is only needed if constituencies
will have a measure of "power" in the new construct. 
If we can transfer whatever "power" they now have
(such as the right to elect directors) to a GNSO
membership via plebiscite, then perhaps we can finally
dispense with the need for formal constituencies.


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

> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail