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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joop,

I think that we are talking past eachother on two different wavelengths:
what I mean is that the issue of individual registrants representation in
the GNSO is still on the table (and sorry for pointing out that we are far
from having consensus on it, but this just a reality check), while the
global election by individual members is currently not.

The distinction I am making is meant to be a hint on the fact that the GA
might be in a position to influence the former, but not the latter. So, if
the issue brought forward is the direct election of Board members (the
subject dear to the heart of Danny), IMHO the GA is losing its time. If,
OTOH, a well reasoned and motivated paper is presented to the GNSO WG,
explaining what is the loss in not having a registrants constituency for the
GNSO, this will be received and be part of the public record.

Cheers,
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 29 June 2007 06:26
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: issues that are long closed?
> 
> At 04:59 p.m. 29/06/2007, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >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).
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> It is a pity that you still see the need to hedge, even when 
> admitting that that issue is not closed.
> 
> >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).
> 
> Done so.
> 
> >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.
> 
> 
> What I said was that the issue had to be  "adequately 
> addressed". Does not sound like "all or nothing" or any mantra to me.
> I have posted my recommendation to the WG and let's see if it 
> will be debated.
> 
> I believe it is now time for the Board to take a real initiative.
> 
> To those who do not see at all the need and usefulness of an 
> individual representation they can point to the thousands of 
> postings of the unrepresented  Registerfly registrants.
> 
> 
> -joop-