Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Danny and all,

  Not a bad idea here perhaps, Danny.  I would need to 
think about it a bit however.  

  However we have said all along that the constituency
model for the GNSO is flawed, if not illegal under RICO.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 26, 2007 7:11 AM
>To: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <roddixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ga] Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements
>
>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 ===
>
>
>
> 
>____________________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827