[ga] RE: issues that are long closed?

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joop,

The issue of individual representation is far from being closed, and the
matter is on the agenda of the GNSO Review Working Group (incidentally, that
only means it is being debated, not that it is going to be part of the
recommendation).
Other issues, like for instance the direct election of Directors, is closed,
at least for the foreseeable future.

If we want to discuss how we can propose something to create an individual
users or non-professional registrants constituency, we can do (actually, you
might give input to the GNSO Review WG, the public comment period is open).
But you might want to acknowledge that there is a wide range of opinions on
the matter, including the ones who do not see at all the need and usefulness
of an individual representation, and that in the end the Board will decide
based on the opinions of the seated Directors. Proposals that can have wider
support will have a chance to be accepted, proclaims of all-or-nothing will
be inevitably rejected because nobody else in the Board will join.

If, on the other hand, you want to repeat the mantra of all the power to the
people, and direct elections of Board representatives, my personal opinion
is that there is little chance to be able to go anywhere.

Cheers,
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 28 June 2007 23:07
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: issues that are long closed?
> 
> At 11:52 a.m. 29/06/2007, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> >On the same line of reasonment, maybe we could wonder 
> whether there is 
> >a correlation between the fact that most of what goes on now 
> in the GA 
> >is complaining or resuscitating issues that are long closed and the 
> >fact that the Board does not pay attention.
> 
> Dear Roberto,
> 
> Would you not acknowledge that the issue of Individuals' 
> representation would have been "closed" unilaterally  and not 
> by a process like Independent Review, that might indeed have 
> brought closure.
> 
> Was it perhaps "closed" by a Board vote in 1999?
> Or was it the ALSC report that brought "closure"?
> 
> As it is, it is this  open deficit that still disfigures 
> ICANN and it will do so until it is adequately addressed.
> 
> The LSE report makes recommendations for GNSO improvement and 
> now we are requested to comment on these and come with our 
> own recommendations.
> 
> The fact that some on this list still care to do this, 
> constructively and for ICANN's benefit, should be respected 
> rather than discouraged with 
> labels and   venom.
> 
> What I would prefer to see is a Board initiative, without a 
> third petition.
> Perhaps that idea could be brought to the Board's attention?
> 
> -joop-