ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC

  • To: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-improvements-report-2008@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:05:41 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Ross and all,

  As now persona's non grata, all of our members, users and
registrants all, have neither a voice or a vote of their 
choosing and under the suggested/perposed "registrants
advisory board" will not either.  This is not representative
and therefore inconsistent with the MOU and ICANN's mission

  A voice and not a vote is inadequate for users and registrants
whom are also users themselves.  What is good for users and
registrants should be good for both, win-win.  Registries 
and registrars may not always benefit with user-non-registrants
or user-registrants demands, which are after all the demands
of the broad marketplace.  But users whom are employed by
registries and registrars will benefit equally with other users
and some of these users may also be registrants as well...

  What is missing, or should I say has been removed, is the
GA which when official, was inclusive of all classes of 
users and open and transparent to all whom wished to
participate.  Such is a representation of and too
accountability, which ICANN and particularly the GNSO
lacks significantly and has for some time.

  The ALS'es approach is a failure, and of course was
from it's inception as it seeks to divide rather than 
unite by it's very nature of structure.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 23, 2008 8:34 AM
>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
>Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> Ross Rader wrote:
>>> I think the paper is correct in pointing out that contracted parties do 
>>> need some sort of grouping, but it forgets that registrants (of all 
>>> types) are a highly important component of this.
>> Personally, I would like to see a registrants' advisory board made up of
>> those subsets of all constituencies (business, noncomm, at-large) that
>> has an interest in protecting registrant's rights. Since these groups
>> are already part of official constituencies I see this as an advsory
>> board that would work with those constituency groups to help forumlate
>> registrant-friendly policy.
>> For the same reasons, I don't see identification of registrants as a new
>> separate constituency to be a good idea.
>I believe the current registrant constituencies should be dissolved and 
>picked up under the new "registrant"/"user" split. As it currently 
>stands, the commercial user community in the form of the BC/ISPC/IPC 
>wields way too much power in the GNSO structure. There is also a 
>smaller, but important, over-allotment to the registry and registrar 
>constituencies. Both of these over-allotments (I believe) more rightly 
>belong in the hands of the individual registrants and individual users - 
>neither of which have any real representative voice in the GNSO process 
>right now. Taking some "voice" away from the existing constituencies and 
>re-apportioning it to a mostly new set of constituencies is, in my 
>opinion, the only real way to create a proper and lasting balance in the 
> From what you are describing, the registrant advisory board sounds 
>remarkably similar to the contracted registrant constituency that I am 
>proposing. But what is missing from this is the other half of the 
>equation - the users, which also need a seat at the table.
>ALAC mailing list
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org


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
My Phone: 214-244-4827

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy