RE: [ga] RE: issues that are long closed?

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Debbie and all,

  I don't see any wise advice here from Roberto of for
that matter anyond else.  No offense intended.

  Robertos comments were seemingly guarded in that
he seemed to want to partially preempt any attempt
at individual representation given: "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.">>  Ergo this
quote from Roberto's remarks below signifies that self organization
as an inclusive part of ICANN is VERY limited.  That is definately
not transparent.  

  Sorry again Debbie, nor cigar.  Thanks for playing
anyway...



-----Original Message-----
>From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 29, 2007 4:56 AM
>To: roberto@xxxxxxxxx, 'Joop Teernstra' <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ga] RE: issues that are long closed?
>
>I don't believe it!  This email is the single most important email to have
>been posted here and it has not received a single response in amongst the
>stone throwing.
>
>What do you think members?  Should we act upon Roberto's good advice? If
>yes, how shall we organise ourselves to do so?
>
>Roberto, perhaps you can help me out here.  I'm a newbie, how can we start
>discussions on the creation of an individual users constituency? Are there
>any guidelines or documents that would help us? Also, I don't know how to
>access the GNSO Review WG, it would be helpful if you could post a link.
>
>Best regards
>
>Debbie
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
>> Sent: 29 June 2007 06:00
>> To: 'Joop Teernstra'
>> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ga] RE: issues that are long closed?
>> 
>> 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-
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
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