Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny, Beau, and all,

  Beau, frankly Danny makes a very strong argument below, and
as additionally the ALAC's and ALS'es are unwilling to self
fund, unwilling to be fully transparent and open, enguaging
in selective censensorship, grossly unaware of the history of
many of the impending issues, and significantly willing to conduct
much of issue related discussions and decisions on "Internatl
Lists", these ALAC's, and ALS'es cannot in their current structure
be a representation of or representatives for users.  

  This said, it is also not too late to change the error in
these ALAC's and ALS'es ways...  But given the recent banter,
I am not, nor are any of our members holding our breaths that
a significant enough change in these ALAC's and ALS'es ways
is forthcoming.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 28, 2008 9:54 AM
>To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Ashton-Hart 
><Nick.Ashton-Hart@xxxxxxxxx>, At-Large Worldwide 
><alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NA Discuss <na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits
>
>Sorry to have to disagree, but if I were sitting on
>the Board Governance Committee I'd be scoffing at the
>ridiculous demands being made in this document as no
>case has properly been made for ALS (user)
>constituency status within the GNSO.
>
>A few questions:
>
>1.  The GNSO has made it possible for participation
>within their committees, task forces, ad-hoc groups,
>and volunteer drafting teams -- how many ALSs have
>availed themselves of the opportunity?
>
>2.  The GNSO is a policy formulating body that
>discusses policy matters on-line -- how many ALSs have
>participated in any online DNS-related policy
>discussion?
>
>3.  GNSO Constituencies are self-supporting and each
>charges a fee for membership -- how many ALSs are
>willing to pay a constituency membership fee?
>
>4.  GNSO Councillors travel to ICANN sessions without
>the benefit of ICANN travel support -- how many ALSs
>will be willing to regularly send their members at
>their own expense to GNSO functions?
>
>5.  Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of
>the ALAC letter sent to the Board regarding
>front-running?
>
>6.  Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of
>GNSO discussions on fast-flux or inter-registrar
>domain transfers or the GNSO's current position on
>IDNC?
>
>7.  Although the ALAC always has some sort of comment
>to make on the topic of WHOIS (that lends itself to
>armchair philosophers), how many ALSs actually
>volunteered to participate in an effort to define the
>next range of WHOIS studies?
>
>You know, when we consider topics like fast-track for
>IDNs, we factor in considerations such as demand and
>capability -- when I look at the GNSO restructuring I
>see no widespread demand for ALS involvement, nor do I
>see a capability to engage in serious policy
>formulation discussions.  
>
>Just look at the regional lists -- has any ALS from
>anywhere in the world other than North America
>expressed an interest in an ALS constituency?  New
>constituencies are supposed to be able to demonstrate
>that they are:
>
>1)  broadly representative; and
>2)  that the addition of such a Constituency will
>improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its
>policy-development responsibilities.
>
>Based on the track record of ALAC's ALSs, you couldn't
>convince me that they will act to improve the ability
>of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development
>obligations... they haven't even managed to put
>together a proper working group on any topic
>whatsoever or for that matter discuss DNS policy on
>their own discussion lists.
>
>I will not support the current text as I believe it to
>be detrimental to a GNSO that suffers enough already
>from the presence of certain constituencies that only
>rarely choose to participate.  We don't need more of
>that.
>
>
>--- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I'm closer to supporting this than anything else
>> I've seen yet.
>> 
>> Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a
>> little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm
>> referring to Nick's revisions on the right).
>> 
>> BB
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf
>> of Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Sent: Sat 4/26/2008 11:24 AM
>> To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss
>> Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement
>> Edits
>>  
>> Dear All:
>> 
>> I have been requested to provide some language which
>> might act as a 'bridge' which could help to
>> reconcile the views expressed about the Joint
>> Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject
>> of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last
>> several days.
>> 
>> I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to
>> what is required. As always, whether it is used or
>> not is entirely up to all of you.
>> 
>> I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using
>> the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board
>> of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me
>> that this would make it easy for everyone to see the
>> original text of that document and also the changes
>> that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you:
>> 
>> 1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and
>> the drafting work just done:
>>
>https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements&mode=source&new_revision_id=20080426152144&old_revision_id=20080423215537&Button=Compare+Revisions
>> 
>> 2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified:
>>
>https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements;revision_id=20080423215537
>> 
>> 3. Joint Proposal of Users:
>>
>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY.doc
>> 
>> NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are
>> travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ
>> in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy
>> Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent
>> to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please
>> keep this in mind if you need to reach us.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Director for At-Large
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>> (ICANN)
>> Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
>> Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
>> Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68
>> email: nick.ashton-hart@xxxxxxxxx
>> Win IM: ashtonhart@xxxxxxxxxxx / AIM/iSight:
>> nashtonhart@xxxxxxx / Skype: nashtonhart
>> Online Bio:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> 
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> 
>> ***
>> Scanned
>> 
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> 
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> ------
>> 
>
>
>
>      
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>Be a better friend, newshound, and 
>know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>------
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>------

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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
My Phone: 214-244-4827