Re: [ga] Increased foreign attendance

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all,

 Excellent critique here Danny, and spot on IMHO.

  And Debbie, we of the GA are standing up in the
best way we can, and sometimes the only way we have
available as ICANN and the GNSO has made the GA
"personas non gratis".  ICANN has not allowed for
a free and unfettered At Large, nor allowed for an
Independent Registrants Constituency.  So with only
a largely unrecognized voice, and no vote, the vast majority
of users, and Domain name holders are subject to the
whim of a tiny minority's policies and practices.  I am
sure you can understand that such a huge disadvantage,
along with stifling of expression is an unhealthy thing.

  Yet we of the GA do not beg for mercy from ICANN
for recognition, we stand tall, firm and resolute and
demand that deserved recognition for all GA'ers,
users, and Registrants whom stand on basic principals
without reservation nor condition.

Danny Younger wrote:

> Hello Debbie,
>
> While your characterization of many of the comments on
> this list as "highly critical of ICANN" is absolutely
> correct, your observations regarding the constructive
> value of member contributions is incorrect.
>
> Members of the GA have actively participated in the
> new gTLD policy formulation process, in the PDP on
> existing registry criteria, in the GNSO WHOIS Working
> Group (but always we participate as outsiders as we
> have no constituency of our own within the GNSO
> proper).
>
> As outsiders, there is no one to advocate for our
> positions after our commentary is submitted.
> Consequently our input is disregarded by the special
> interest lobbiests within the GNSO.  It's pretty much
> like writing a thesis, attaching it to a brick, and
> throwing it over the wall (knowing that it will never
> be read or acknowledged by those on the receiving
> side).  Those with no voting power are too easily
> ignored.
>
> While you have worked on Committees for years, we on
> this list aren't allowed at the same table with our
> peers in the GNSO.  There is no constituency for
> individuals such as ourselves (as ICANN has never
> permitted the establishment of such a constituency).
>
> P.S.  We look forward to continuing to bash ICANN
> whenever it deserves a good thrashing.  My expectation
> is that those who receive funding from ICANN will
> choose to not jeopardize their ongoing funding by
> remaining relatively silent on critical matters... in
> my view this is not healthy for the long-term future
> of the internet, and I regard this selective funding
> as a device that necessarily promotes a "chilling
> effect" that impacts the freedom of expression.
>
> regards,
> Danny
>
> --- Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Danny
> >
> > Thanks for the outline.  I can, somewhat, understand
> > your frustration.
> > However as an observer I can perhaps see why, I have
> > been subscribed to this
> > list since December 2006 and from what I can see the
> > majority of posts are
> > highly critical of ICANN and not in any way
> > constructive; it is the
> > constructive aspect that is missing.    Please don't
> > misunderstand me, I do
> > not mean that you should not disagree but rather
> > there are ways of
> > disagreeing with ICANN and putting forward positive
> > points for change.  If
> > you only criticise you cannot be expected to be
> > taken seriously. If you put
> > forward ideas and they are constructive and can
> > reasonably be implemented
> > they stand a better chance of being adopted.  If you
> > put forward good ideas
> > that stand no chance of being implemented they
> > cannot reasonably be adopted.
> > OK, so I am a little naïve, but I have worked
> > committees and forums for a
> > number of years with some success.
> >
> > For instance, if you disagree with ICANN's inclusion
> > initiative perhaps you
> > could say why.  This forum could be much more
> > constructive and feed into the
> > process. I am afraid that moaning about someone else
> > getting travel
> > assistance will not improve your case.  Other
> > comments in line below:
> >
> >
> > > With regard to your other observations, ICANN can
> > certainly
> > > be faulted for not providing a plenary agenda well
> > in advance
> > > of its sessions.  No reasonable person that is not
> > funded by
> > > other self-interested parties can plan to attend a
> > conference
> > > without even the benefit of a schedule of
> > activities to
> > > justify the expense of travel, lodging, and time
> > away from
> > > family or work.
> >
> > I think pretty much everyone knows 90% of what is
> > going to be on ICANN's
> > agenda each time.  However, I would agree that a
> > generous lead time is
> > always preferable though not always possible. As an
> > example, I recently
> > called a meeting of international experts with just
> > 14 days notice. This is
> > obviously not good, but you have to understand what
> > goes on behind the
> > scenes to organise such things.  Then you can
> > perhaps see how impossible it
> > sometimes is to organise sooner.  Venues, timings,
> > other peoples schedules
> > of meetings to tie in for main participants.  It can
> > be a logistical
> > nightmare and I only have 25 members in 10 different
> > countries!
> >
> > > Many of us on this list have little interest in
> > ICANN's
> > > inclusion initiatives as long as ICANN continues
> > to pursue
> > > exclusionary policies.
> >
> > Well, a little bit of advice, take interest and then
> > you may become the
> > included.  Or at the very least, stop bashing ICANN
> > at every opportunity.
> >
> > > These exclusionary policies have seen the removal
> > of all
> > > at-large directors from ICANN's board, the formal
> > dissolution
> > > of the General Assembly as a representative
> > structure and no
> > > role for the broader at-large community of
> > unaffiliated individuals.
> >
> > I don't know that much about ICANN and the way they
> > run things but looking
> > at this purely from a business perspective, ICANN
> > are trying to run a
> > business/service.  Trying to do that with a board of
> > Directors all with
> > different agendas is almost impossible and can
> > totally freeze an
> > organization.  You have to build a board of people
> > who have the same or
> > similar goals to get things done. It is not about
> > exclusion, it is about
> > moving forward.
> >
> >
> > > ICANN's exclusionary policies have twice seen the
> > Board
> > > disregard a petition for an individuals
> > constituency.
> >
> > I don't understand this?
> >
> > > Just because ICANN now has a swelling budget (the
> > result of
> > > Board-imposed domain name price increases that the
> > registrant
> > > community has to pay for) does not mean that we
> > approve of
> > > ICANN spending our monies to gather up a circle of
> > "friends"
> > > while those critical of ICANN behaviors continue
> > to be left
> > > out in the cold.
> >
> > So what is this forum all about?  What is it that
> > you don't like about ICANN
> > policies or procedures and how would you propose
> > that they change?  Does
> > this forum have a Charter?
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Debbie Garside
> > >
> > > best wishes,
> > > Danny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Just a couple of small observations not directed
> > at anyone
> > > but rather
> > > > for the thread as a whole.  Technically
> > government ministries
> > > > (supposedly) represent the people who elected
> > them.
> > > >
> > > > On a further note, many of us (probably most in
> > this
> > > > forum) have an option
> > > > as to whether we spend our money going to ICANN
> > meetings.
> > > Questions
> > > > like:
> > > > is it worth the expense or is it not?  Do I want
> > to spend
> > > my money on
> > > > this or shall I have an extra holiday with my
> > family? Can I
> > > afford the
> > > > time?
> > > > Etc.  Come into play.  For some the prospect of
> > going to an ICANN
> > > > meeting means spending 4 years (+) income!  Not
> > really an option is
> > > > it!
> > > > http://www.cbuhaiti.org/about_haiti.htm
> > > >
> > > > I, for one, applaud the initiative.  I wish
> > there were more
> > > such. If
> > > > there were no such initiative, no doubt, members
> > of this
> > > forum would
> > > > be beating ICANN around the head with a big
> > stick demanding it!
> > > >  Perhaps we could
> > > > change the essence of this thread to how ICANN
> > can improve their
> > > > "Inclusion Initiatives" as opposed to griping
> > about
> > > participants being
> > > > "paid" to attend.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Debbie Garside
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > > > > sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> === 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