Dominik and all my friends, I personally agree that more quantifiable input means are very useful if managed properly and should be used much more than they have been sense ICANN's conception. ICANN has used surveys to an extent with mixed accurate or perceived results. These mediocre results have been pointed out before and the reasons to same also have been articulated significantly and which pointed directly to poor managment perhaps due to lack of staff and/or staff expertise. Dominik Filipp wrote:
Jeff,
once the registrant constituency and/or the registrant advisory committee come into being the similar problems will disappear. The GA can still remain a good place for deliberations and the source of public input out of which decisions will be formed. But just one of the sources, I guess. We should also have a more quantifiable input such as surveys, straw polls, etc.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:23 AM To: ga@gnso.icann.org Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
Dominik and all,
I understand fully the problem, that being the GA is not an official body within the ICANN structure. That needs to change! Some may believe that the ALAC is a replacement for the GA. I don't see it that way, I see the GA as the only place were at present, the Independant Registrants AND users have a voice, all be it no vote.
Dominik Filipp wrote:
Jeff,
yes, I also see the GA a good place for deliberations on registrant constituency and other issues as well. But there are two different things here you have to distinguish between. Registrant constituency and/or advisory committee are official bodies that have to be first identified and established within the ICANN structures with all the power delegated, and as such have nothing to do either with the GA or any other mailing list. The efforts here are not about promoting the GA to be automatically incorporated into the structure as is. The mentioned bodies have specific attributes and are
driven by respective bylaws totally different from those applied on mailing lists. I just want to say that there is a big difference between official bodies and mailing lists and that a mailing list cannot be simply switched to an ICANN body.
Another thing is that once such a constituency and/or committee will be officially established and formed, people from the GA or other mailing list or from anywhere else may be elected as official members,
or act as volunteers, participants, and so forth.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:35 PM To: ga@gnso.icann.org Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
Dominik and all,
Agree here as well. As is well known, our members have been advocating for a Independent registrants constituency for several years. In fact, we like to consider our organization as such. We are not however part of the ICANN constituency structure. But I personally fairly sure either our organization could be incorporated into the ICANN Constituency structure/GNSO or would give serious consideration to the formation of such as long as the rules for membership are not overly restrictive. Of course that is where the rubber meets the road
so to speak...
Further the GA is a good place to for the time being, discuss and determine the details of such a Independent Registrants Constituency.
Dominik Filipp wrote:
Chuck,
agreed on all counts here. The Registrant Constituency is definitely
the goal worth pursuing. As regards the details, we could start discussing this here on the GA and gain some support/knowledge from other people.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:26 PM To: Dominik Filipp; Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger Cc: twomey@icann.org; ga@gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
I have always felt that registrant representation would be good but I have yet to see anyone come up with an effective way to make it happen
that results in broad representation of the registrant community. I
know I don't have to tell people on this list that the registrant population is hugely diverse and comes from all parts of the world.
As we get closer to GNSO improvements that will likely give increased representation to individuals via the non-commercial stakeholder group, this would be an excellent time for people to develop and propose a workable way to create a registrant constituency that truly does represent a broad base of non-commercial, individual gTLD registrants around world.
Chuck Gomes
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:33 AM To: Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger Cc: twomey@icann.org; ga@gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dengate Thrush Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:46 AM To: Danny Younger Cc: twomey@icann.org; ga@gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
. . .
While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and supporting organizations whose responsibilities include putting forth the general registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities.
What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds
support and drive the ICANN process.
This may be a useful development. I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and
disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups
(Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large
I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group, necessarily a subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests
in particular that you feel are not being served by the current structure?
In fact, we need more than just a Registrant Advisory Committee. We need a fully-fledged Registrant Constituency with all the voting power. Why? For simple and logical reason. The Registrants stay on top of the financial chain generating income for ICANN. Without the need for domain names there would be no need for either Registries or Registrars or ISPs. Thus Registrants, though indirectly, is the very
first gear wheel in the income machinery. The Registrant Constituency should have been the very first constituency established within the ICANN structures when ICANN was formed. And the most influential as it indeed deserves. Without such
representation ICANN can barely hold its claim as being an advocate of
all internet users or stakeholders.
. . .
Regards
Dominik Filipp
You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from such a contribution.
best regards, Danny Younger
__________________________________________________________________ __ __ ______________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/
newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Peter Dengate Thrush barrister@chambers.gen.nz
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827