RE: [ga]

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Debbie and all,

  Again I am sorry and confused.  I did not interprate
Danny's post as a "rant" of any sort, but as a very brief
review in his own well worded style.  Nothing wrong with
that from where I sit.  So I my confusion is why did you
view Dannys review as ranting?  What in the context of what
Danny stated indicates any sort of rant?  Please advise
and enlighten us all with the benifit of your linguistic
written omnipitance.  Me thinks you did not like reading
the truth and therefore had to come up with some sort
of non constructive criticism...

-----Original Message-----
>From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 29, 2007 4:30 AM
>To: dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx, 'Roberto Gaetano' <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, froomkin@xxxxxx
>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ga] "the fact that the Board does not pay attention"
>
>Danny
>
>I am sure that this forum could feed into the process and have a liaison
>representative on the board (eventually).  I am sure that members of this
>forum have much to offer. However, again I have to say, look at the lines of
>communication.  Stop ranting and raving.  It's no good saying "I told you
>so" if your method of communication means that whatever you say is ignored
>regardless.
>
>Why do you (as in, the members of this forum) not listen to the reasons why
>you are not listened to? With all your wonderful papers you are tying ICANN
>in knots - they cannot possibly listen to you.  You have to put forward
>proposals piecemeal if you want to stand any chance of having them adopted.
>You have to put forward your perspective in such a way that ICANN staff can
>deal with it without having to employ an army of lawyers to interpret it.  
>
>You also have to look at the bigger picture and realise that this is not the
>only group and that ICANN have to look at "knock-on" effects of implementing
>your proposals in relation to these other groups and the organisation as a
>whole.  It's called business management.  But they can only do this if you
>speak coherently in the first place.
>
>Still awaiting an answer as to what the objectives of this forum are! 
>
>Best regards
>
>Debbie
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
>> Sent: 29 June 2007 02:45
>> To: Roberto Gaetano; froomkin@xxxxxx
>> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ga] "the fact that the Board does not pay attention"
>> 
>> Roberto,
>> 
>> Over the years the Board has been often warned about matters 
>> such as the lack of registrant data escrow services, about 
>> registrar circumvention of consensus policies, about the lack 
>> of competitive choice in the RGP cycle, about the folly of 
>> creating a defacto registry/registrar guild, about deficient 
>> accreditation practices that led to the creation of hundreds 
>> of phantom registrars, etc. etc.
>> 
>> The GA has served as an early warning system exposing the the 
>> flaws in current ICANN policies, but apparently it takes a 
>> major disaster such as the Registerfly debacle for the Board 
>> to realize that the GA has been on target while the Board and 
>> Staff have been asleep at the wheel.
>> 
>> If the Board has chosen not to pay attention to those that 
>> endeavor to help safeguard the future of the DNS, then they 
>> are exercising their fiduciary responsibilities in a truly 
>> delinquent manner. 
>> 
>> We can't gloss over issues that you regard as "long closed" 
>> because we see a Board that has been derelict in its duty to 
>> the community.  Eliminating all at-large directors pushed the 
>> pendulum too far in the wrong direction.  The White Paper 
>> warned of the potential for capture by a self-interested 
>> faction, and indeed ICANN has been captured by those with 
>> little regard for the public interest element.
>> 
>> Now the public interest considerations are beginning to bite 
>> ICANN in the butt as inattention to this factor has commanded 
>> the world's attention.
>> 
>> Issues aren't closed just because the Board says they are closed.  
>> 
>> The Board has made a number of bad decisions ranging from its 
>> manhandling of the at-large community to shafting the 
>> registrant community with unwarranted price increases.  
>> 
>> Don't expect us to forget these insults just because the 
>> Board has moved on to other issues.  
>> 
>> Wrongs must be corrected.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> > Michael Froomkin wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > As for the RALOs they're so far from the Board's
>> > ear that one
>> > > wonders whether anyone takes them seriously or if
>> > they're
>> > > just there to let ICANN insiders bamboozle the
>> > press.  There
>> > > is no constitutency now represented in ICANN that
>> > would ever
>> > > settle for such poor representation.  The day
>> > that, say,
>> > > businesses, who also number in the millions, are
>> > asked to
>> > > organzie along the same lines is the day that I'll
>> > start to
>> > > take RALO's seriously.
>> > 
>> > I would like to offer a different perspective.
>> > Businesses belong to the Business Constituency of the GNSO. That 
>> > constituency is one of the 6 in the Council. In the Name 
>> Council you 
>> > have also the NomCom representatives, and two constituencies 
>> > (Registries and
>> > Registrars) have weighted voting.
>> > So, they count in the Council for slightly more than 10% of the 
>> > voting.
>> > The current GNSO-elected Board Directors come from the IPC and 
>> > Registrars, and the former came from NCUC. Previous Directors also 
>> > came, if I am not mistaken, from IPC or Registrars. So the Business 
>> > Constituency as such has zero power on the Board.
>> > The ALAC, on the contrary, has a non-voting Liaison.
>> > Although the Liaison
>> > does not have a vote, I can assure you, for having been 
>> ALAC Liaison 
>> > for 3+ years, that his/her voice is heard and taken into 
>> account. In 
>> > simple words, the Liaison does not have the power of 
>> voting, but does 
>> > have the power of directly influencing, during Board meetings. Of 
>> > course, if the Liaison is only complaining and bitching, 
>> he/she will 
>> > no longer be listened to, while if he/she is available to 
>> debate in a 
>> > civilized way, there is wide room for being able to have 
>> ALAC's points 
>> > of view taken into account in shaping the final decision.
>> > 
>> > 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. Or whether there is a 
>> > correlation between the fact that whenever somebody new does not 
>> > conform to the groupthink he/she gets attacked and the fact 
>> that very 
>> > few newcomers resist in the GA for long.
>> > 
>> > Best regards,
>> > Roberto
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ______________________
>> Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business 
>> gives you all the tools to get online.
>> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
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