ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] GA contribution

  • To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] GA contribution
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:11:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=IYOYEFI0B1qnblpnuCEpA1bZO9KKgBe/VxGq541be0H3XgkBQM52L5Iohuhy2sMw; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
  • Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Mr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P>&nbsp; As the GA by your and Debbies own desire is <STRONG>not </STRONG>a decision making body within</P>
<P>ICANN's GNSO&nbsp;it seems nearly a total waste of time for members to consider doing</P>
<P>very much in depth work for the GA to end up with a submissible proposal</P>
<P>for consideration as a consensus or even a rough consensus draft proposal</P>
<P>to the GNSO or directly to the ICANN Bod.&nbsp; </P>
<P>&nbsp; Secondly, as the GA has only at most 206 subscribers and maybe as many as</P>
<P>12 active subscribers. As such, &nbsp;for the GNSO or the ICANN bod to consider proposals</P>
<P>from the GA as being very broad based would be far less than realistic or</P>
<P>even reasonable.</P>
<P>&nbsp; So as has been the case for a number of years now, the problem is one of</P>
<P>structure and process, not one of the ability or lack of good or reasonable</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 9:47 AM <BR>To: Danny Younger <DANNYYOUNGER@xxxxxxxxx>, GA <GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: Re: [ga] GA contribution <BR><BR>
<DIV>After further review - - My point still stands. The GA should give a GA contribution on this. It was not hard to read the entire archives at http://forum.icann.org/lists/museum-renewal-2007/<BR></DIV>
<DIV>The only IU/IDNH voices were crying in the wind. </DIV>
<DIV>Actually I think we could take the principals laid out in yours' and Karls' contribution, add to them, take into consideration Ruiz, Nevitt and &nbsp;Stahura. And then try to submit a comment that has some backing from our community. We do not have to rehash all the old arguments just get to the core and add evolving concept. The key new attribute of the comments would be that they have reasonable backing and popular support.</DIV>
<DIV>We have to&nbsp;stop being dissatisfied with&nbsp;putting our individual comments out there all by ourselves. It is not necessarily reasonable to expect that they be given full accord in that format.&nbsp;I am not suggesting ceasing contributing to the differeing forums but rather including work with the GA to get something accomplished.</DIV>
<DIV><B><I>Danny Younger &lt;dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Eric,<BR><BR>The ICANN Staff rationale for this negotiated<BR>settlement was already announced two weeks ago on the<BR>Registrars list -- see<BR>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05034.html<BR><BR>It's really a lousy decision between two parties that<BR>fails to address the issues raised earlier by Tim Ruiz<BR>and Jon Nevett -- see their comments at<BR>http://forum.icann.org/lists/museum-renewal-2007/<BR><BR>Staff simply took out the word "register" in an effort<BR>to placate the registrars, and reduced the number of<BR>names "under direct management" by 1000 -- nothing<BR>more than cosmetic surgery on the earlier proposed<BR>contract language.<BR><BR>The result of this agreement is already in conflict<BR>with Recommendation 19 in the new gTLDs GNSO Report:<BR>"Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars<BR>in registering domain names" (although, in my view,<BR>it's a really stupid recommendation that probably<BR>violates antitrust laws anyway). <BR><BR>Karl Auerbach also makes a good point regarding<BR>modifications to current registry contracts; his<BR>comment is here: <BR>http://forum.icann.org/lists/museum-renewal-2007/msg00004.html<BR><BR>--- Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; This contribution from the community lacks our<BR>&gt; input. We have a 30 day comment window on this<BR>&gt; agreement. Is there anyone interested in leading a<BR>&gt; group to formulate our contribution.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;<BR>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31aug07.htm<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Eric<BR>&gt; as Chair<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>======= <BR><BR>'Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</ZZZBODY></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>