<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements
- To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rod Dixon,J.D.,LL.M." <roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements
- From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:27:09 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
- Cc: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=f+dRi6E4ohuz030cmKuibn+CDpHKlvwaCEMQNQYPD39YELrDacWhAK8tsbyJlAQg; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
- Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P>Dr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> Again the IDNO is and remains a fraudulent organization which</P>
<P>is one of several reasons it was rejected by ICANN and rightly so.</P>
<DIV id=compText><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Jun 26, 2007 1:04 PM <BR>To: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <RODDIXON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Karl Auerbach <KARL@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: Joe Baptista <BAPTISTA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <DANNYYOUNGER@xxxxxxxxx>, Joop Teernstra <TERASTRA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements <BR><BR>
<DIV>I think we are leading in this direction: and Rod lays out, with cogent reasoning, the grounds for putting our best inclusive foot forward.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here is the IDNO petition;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN id=lw_1182880431_0 style="BACKGROUND: #dceeff"><FONT color=#003399><A href="http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htl";>http://www.cavebear.com/archive/idno/petition.htl</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would appear to not be copyrighted so we can just work of this model and handle logistics from this list. Extremely useful would be if those with a good memory tell us what failed.</DIV>
<DIV>"we have done this before" only applies if we adhere strictly to an IDNO model, and don't listen to both ICANN hierarchy and our own genius.</DIV>
<DIV>Next mail will be the full petition for our hard of hearing/seeing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you Karl if you would leave this up and acquiesce to our tresspasses.<BR><BR><B><I>"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face="Times New Roman">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.</FONT>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><FONT class=Apple-style-span face="Times New Roman"></FONT>Rod</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; orphans: 2; widows: 2; khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; apple-text-size-adjust: auto">
<DIV>Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.</DIV>
<DIV>www.cyberspaces.org</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Jun 25, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Hugh Dierker wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>If Joe is for it, that is it.</DIV>
<DIV>I am taking the afternoon off just to begin work on it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><B><I>Joe Baptista <<A href="mailto:baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Hugh Dierker wrote:<BR><BR>> I have given this proposition reasonable time. I have noticed many <BR>> posting since this mailing.<BR>> I have specifically noted 0 posts in opposition.<BR>> <BR>> There has been some discussion regarding making the constituency <BR>> exclusively an IDNO versus an all inclusive Individual Users constituency.<BR><BR><BR>Sounds like the Inclusive NameSpace :) Let's see if it gets off the <BR>ground. A place thats inclusive of everyone within the constructs of <BR>icann. I'm all for it. I'm willing t try.<BR><BR>regards<BR>joe baptista<BR><BR>> <BR>> Let us have some pointed discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of <BR>> having either.<BR>> <BR>> Eric<BR>><BR>> */"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." /* wrote:<BR>><BR>> I think drafting a petition to self-organize an "Individual's<BR>> Constituency" is a good idea given some of the content of the BGC<BR>> WG working draft document. It appears that at least 4 people on<BR>> this list have affirmed that a petition is a good idea; that<BR>> probably is enough of a "rough consensus" of active participants<BR>> to get started. Yes?<BR>><BR>> Rod<BR>><BR>><BR>> Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.<BR>> <A href="mailto:roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Danny Younger wrote:<BR>><BR>>> Joop,<BR>>><BR>>> In my estimation the Board Governance Committee<BR>>> doesn't have the balls to instigate meaningful reform.<BR>>><BR>>> They sat on the LSE Report for a full year without<BR>>> taking any action and have now released an ICANN Staff<BR>>> document (written with the assistance of Miriam<BR>>> Sapiro) that documents their ongoing lassitude by<BR>>> posing pointless "questions" at a time when<BR>>> answers/leadership should instead have been<BR>>> forthcoming.<BR>>><BR>>> It is clear to me that the BGC has only a very few<BR>>> consensus points:<BR>>><BR>>> (1) Unlike the PSO, they can't get rid of the GNSO.<BR>>> (2) They won't do anything until Vint formally<BR>>> retires.<BR>>> (3) They recognize the need for additional<BR>>> constituencies but haven't yet determined exactly<BR>>> which arguments they will put forward to once more<BR>>> prevent the formation of an individuals constituency <BR>>> (as they believe that such a constituency will serve<BR>>> to aggregate those known for their vitriolic invective<BR>>> against the Board). <BR>>> (4) They understand that the GNSO Policy Development<BR>>> process sucks and they're tired of hearing the same<BR>>> old hackneyed phrases from a sorry set of warhorses<BR>>> that should have been put out to pasture years ago,<BR>>> but they still don't have a plan to deal with the<BR>>> situation.<BR>>><BR>>> I further believe that we can expect Vittorio to again<BR>>> come up with a wide range of ridiculous ideas that<BR>>> once more will engender no community-wide buy-in that<BR>>> will be pitched to us in the weeks ahead.<BR>>><BR>>> What is missing in the whole equation is the<BR>>> following:<BR>>><BR>>> When the RegisterFly debacle unfolded and Paul Twomey<BR>>> publicly called for necessary revisions to the RAA as<BR>>> a proper way forward, who stood up and defended the<BR>>> rights of the registrant community? Not one single<BR>>> constituency in the GNSO asked for an Issues Report<BR>>> (even though they all understand that the RAA can only<BR>>> be changed on the basis of Consensus Policy<BR>>> agreements). Not one single RALO discussed policy<BR>>> changes that would better serve the registrant<BR>>> interest. Neither did the ALAC itself call for an<BR>>> Issues Report.<BR>>><BR>>> The only people that stood up for the impacted<BR>>> community were Paul Twomey and his staff, and members<BR>>> of this GA list. <BR>>><BR>>> I agree that a constituency needs to be formed so that<BR>>> amongst our peers we can act to better protect the<BR>>> registrant community (since no else is standing up to<BR>>> defend their interests), but I don't agree that we<BR>>> should use labels such as Individual Domain Name<BR>>> Owners or Registrants to define or name the<BR>>> constituency. Those names have too much baggage<BR>>> associated with them.<BR>>><BR>>> Ultimately, the constituency is us -- we that are<BR>>> already on this list and those that will voluntarily<BR>>> subscribe to the GA list with a commitment to work on<BR>>> GNSO DNS issues.<BR>>><BR>>> We've been here since day one. We aren't about to<BR>>> disappear. So let's call us what we are -- a<BR>>> constituency comprised of GA list members that seeks<BR>>> to petition the board for recognition as a GNSO<BR>>> constituency. We already have a structure, and we<BR>>> have elected officers. What we have is sufficient for<BR>>> our needs and we will require no ICANN funding.<BR>>><BR>>> I am willing to work on a draft petition if others<BR>>> agree.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> --- Joop Teernstra >> > wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>> At 11:05 a.m. 20/06/2007, you wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>>> This disclaimer is just too broad. I gather no one<BR>>>><BR>>>> has any position on <BR>>>><BR>>>>> anything at this time.<BR>>>>> Oh well.<BR>>>>> Eric<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> Eric,<BR>>>><BR>>>> They want recommendations and conclusions from us.<BR>>>> They say that nothing <BR>>>> has been cast in stone yet, although, of course, if<BR>>>> you don't move your <BR>>>> feet , the cement will harden into a new structure<BR>>>> and the representation <BR>>>> of the at large stakeholders will be provided<BR>>>> top-down. (with all the <BR>>>> negative long-term consequences for ICANN and the<BR>>>> hapless "representatives")<BR>>>><BR>>>> "Oh, well" is not the best answer.<BR>>>><BR>>>> My recommendation is that the ICANN Board now take<BR>>>> the initiative to invite <BR>>>> Individual Domain Name Owners to form a recognized<BR>>>> GNSO constituency, its <BR>>>> funding provided for in the 2007 and 2008 budget and<BR>>>> its internal democracy <BR>>>> supervised by the ombudsman and a committee of 3<BR>>>> (elected) Board members.<BR>>>><BR>>>> My conclusions are suspended until this happens.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Is there anyone here who supports that?<BR>>>><BR>>>>> Danny Younger >>>> > wrote:<BR>>>>> The Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review<BR>>>><BR>>>> Working<BR>>>><BR>>>>> Group has released a "Draft Working Document on<BR>>>><BR>>>> GNSO<BR>>>><BR>>>>> Improvements" that presents the Working Group's<BR>>>>> initial thinking on, and raises questions about,<BR>>>><BR>>>> how<BR>>>><BR>>>>> to improve the GNSO, for discussion with Community<BR>>>><BR>>>> at<BR>>>><BR>>>>> the upcoming ICANN Meeting in San Juan and for<BR>>>><BR>>>> public<BR>>>><BR>>>>> comment through the ICANN website. This working<BR>>>><BR>>>> draft<BR>>>><BR>>>>> does not reach any definitive recommendations or<BR>>>>> conclusions at this time. It is posted to encourage<BR>>>>> further public discussion and comment, and it does<BR>>>><BR>>>> not<BR>>>><BR>>>>> represent the position of the Working Group, the<BR>>>><BR>>>> Board<BR>>>><BR>>>>> Governance Committee, or the Board.<BR>>>>> 19 June 2007<BR>>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> <A href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jun07.htm";>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jun07.htm</A><BR>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> key document: <BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> <A href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/draft-wg-bgc-gnso-improvements-18jun07.pdf";>http://www.icann.org/announcements/draft-wg-bgc-gnso-improvements-18jun07.pdf</A><BR>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> --Joop--<BR>>>> <A href="http://www.pollingbooth.info/generalassemblysignup/";>http://www.pollingbooth.info/generalassemblysignup/</A><BR>>>> <A href="http://www.icannatlarge.com/";>www.icannatlarge.com</A><BR>>>> <A href="http://www.democracy.org/idno";>www.democracy.org/idno</A><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________<BR>>> Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's <BR>>> Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. <BR>>> <A href="http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222";>http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222</A><BR>>><BR>><BR>><BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> The fish are biting.<BR>> Get more visitors <BR>> <HTTP: evt="49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50"; us.rd.yahoo.com=""><BR>> on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. <BR>> <HTTP: evt="49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50"; us.rd.yahoo.com=""><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Joe Baptista <A href="http://www.publicroot.org/";>www.publicroot.org</A><BR>PublicRoot Consortium<BR>----------------------------------------------------------------<BR>The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,<BR>Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.<BR>----------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Office: +1 (202) 517-1593<BR>Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084<BR><BR>begin:vcard<BR>fn:Joe Baptista<BR>n:Baptista;Joe<BR>org:PublicRoot Consortium<BR>adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada<BR>email;internet:<A href="mailto:baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>title:PublicRoot Representative<BR>tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084 <BR>tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551<BR>x-mozilla-html:FALSE<BR>url:<A href="http://www.publicroot.org/";>http://www.publicroot.org</A><BR>version:2.1<BR>end:vcard<BR><BR></HTTP:></HTTP:></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<HR SIZE=1>
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.<BR><A href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48246/*http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/;_ylc=X3oDMTE5cDF2bXZzBF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDZ3JlZW4tY2VudGVy";>Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.</A></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P></P>Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR></ZZZBODY></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|