Ross, while I agree with you about users and registrants being two different entities, your imagined reasons for the reason the GA was shut down is something I definitely disagreee with. The GA reached consensus through public voice on several issues and each time those voices were ignored by ICANN. ICANN wants rubber stamp groups and the GA wasn't one. That's why it isn't here anymore. Spin it any way you like but anyone reading the archives can tell that public opinion went one way and ICANN went the other on almost every issue, including attempting to hold elections for the board seats that were supposed to be held where instead board members decided on their own not to give up their seat and not hold elections for those seats. They hijacked the baord against public opinion and consensus. Show me in the archives where the consensus was to have those board members keep their seats. Show me where there was public consensus on the introduction of new tlds. Bottom up consensus . . . yeah, right. Chris McElroy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Rader" <ross@tucows.com> To: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> Cc: "'At-Large Worldwide'" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:21 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
Roberto, Danny, I tend to agree with Danny.
Danny's position is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the facts. The GA wasn't "shut down" because of the threat it posed with the strong positions it took, the GA was shut down because it completely failed to organize and produce any coherent results.
My personal belief is that we need to keep the structure of the GNSO simple. I would like to see a certain number of votes allocated to contracting parties (Registrants, Registries and Registrars) and a certain number allocated to Users (Commercial, Non-commercial, Individual). This would allow us to move ahead fairly small, but highly representative number of constituencies within the GNSO without drastically altering the overall structure and processes that we've evolved over the last few years. Current commercial users (ISPC, BC, IPC) would have to get used to the fact that their influenced would be rightsized, but given the undue influence they've had over the processes for the last 7 years, I think its a reasonable step to take. My only concern relates to Whether commercial/non-commercial is an appropriate distinction to make. I am really trying to make a distinction between for-profit and not-for profit institutional participation.
I don't think that its appropriate to mix the voices of Registrants and Users into the same grouping. The needs of each are very different and I don't think that jamming it all into one structure will give the plurality of those voices proper representation within the structure. I do think it is time however to give the "customers" of the DNS much more of a voice than they have today - the balance is completely out of whack within the current process.
-ross
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org