ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvements-report-2008]


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

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

  • To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Ross Rader'" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-improvements-report-2008@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO reform and ALAC
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:30:41 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Roberto and all,

  I appriciate your comments, the boards past poor decisions,
the improper and falsely weighted current constituency structure,
but unless of until the ICANN Board AND the GNSO council is
fairly represented in the manner that reflects the majority of
stakeholders, ICANN's decisions on policy will never be considered
broadly as exceptable and will be for however long mired in 
conterversy.  

  This again said for I can't now recall however many times or
in however many ways over the past 9+ years, the VAST majority 
of stakeholders are rightly concentrated in individual users 
and individual registrants.  As such, the ICANN board and GNSO 
council, in order to be fairly and equatably seated and recognized, 
must hold a significant majority of seats in each respectively.  
Otherwise ICANN can never meet's it's mission, commitments to the 
public good, or recognize in all honesty and fairness, it's mandate 
accordingly.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 24, 2008 2:05 AM
>To: 'Ross Rader' <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'NA Discuss' 
><na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large]  GNSO reform and ALAC
>
>I hate to comment on merit, because at the end of the day this proposal will
>end up on the Board's agenda, but I cannot avoid making a comment for
>clarification.
>The approach used by Ross (50% to contracted parties, or supplier, 50% to
>non-contracted parties, or users/consumers, plus possibly NomCom appointees
>as tie-breakers) was seen by the GNSO Review WG after very lengthy
>discussions as the only possible balance. This, incidentally, is exactly the
>status-quo, if you do the voting maths: Ry+Rar have 12 votes because of the
>weighted voting, BC+ISP+IP+NCUC have 12 votes, NomComAppointees have 3
>(tie-break) votes. The "triangular" proposal reproposes the unbalanced
>situation we had before, that brought to the introduction of the weighted
>voting. If it didn't work before, and needed fixing, it has little chances
>to be considered workable now. At least, the document should explain to the
>Board why folks think that what did not work in the past would work in the
>future.
>
>On a different level, the whole point the GNSO Review WG was trying to
>address is the fact that in the current situation of ossified constituencies
>there is very little chance, if any, to have new stakeholder groups to be
>introduced, like individual registrants or individual users. Rather than
>engaging in the exercise of finding different structural solutions, would it
>be more useful to work towards building stakeholders groups that can operate
>in the model offered by the GNSO Review WG? Wouldn't this be more useful for
>the individual registrant and/or individual user communities?
>
>Cheers,
>Roberto
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
>> Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2008 16:11
>> To: Wendy Seltzer
>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; Danny Younger; NA Discuss
>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
>> 
>> Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>> > What a farce.
>> > 
>> > Whether or not the document is any good
>> 
>> It isn't. It completely marginalizes the individual 
>> registrant and user communities by shifting most of the power 
>> to the commercial user/commercial registrant community (read: 
>> IPC/ISPC/BC).
>> 
>> 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. My strongest 
>> preference has always been to provide the contracted parties 
>> with 1/2 of the vote of the Council, and the user community 
>> with the other 1/2. How the 1/2s get divided up is a matter 
>> for discussion, but I think its time for a serious discussion 
>> of these matters before some half-baked scheme like this 
>> commercial power grab gets institutionalized.
>> 
>> Sorry for cross posting this - not sure where this thread 
>> should actually live.
>> 
>> /ross
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
>ists.icann.org
>> 
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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


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