Wendy and all, I disagree that the GA failed. It was unceremoniously abandon during the transition from DNSO to GNSO. What has failed and was domed to failure from the beginning is as you rightly indicate, is/was the GNSO. It remains a dismal failure mainly, but not entirely due to lack of transparency and openness as well as unwillingness on the than sitting ICANN Bod, to be inclusive of any and all stakeholders/users to openly participate unencumbered. Most of this unwillingness by the ICANN Bod remains still harbored by some Bod members to this day. Roberto?
From where I sit this clearly represents a lack of competent leadership on a very fundamental basis.
-----Original Message-----
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> Sent: Apr 10, 2008 2:44 PM To: Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
At 15:40 10/04/2008, Ross Rader wrote:
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.
Our problem is precisely here. The GA failed. I do not want to consider who's fault it is. I just observe it. I also consider the consistuency system also failed. In a system where Danny Younger can decide as a non-legitimate NCUC member (as ISOC NY he represents an individual users organisation) impeach the adhesion of my non-profit services oriented organisation to its consituency (NCUC) the system is flawed in terms of democratic representativity.
BUT, the constituency system failed outside of ICANN. Inside of ICANN the BoD still receieve advices from constituencies and GNSO. The real problem for them is just to know if the advices they receives are pertinent or not. As long as they are, the system is good for them.
On one side, Danny provides _additional_ inputs, for years on a stable and pertinent basis. This is something we should make structural. On another side, Roberto wants non-registants and users to be represented. He says by a group. But he actually also actually need pertinent inputs. The "group" is only for legitimacy.
My personal belief is that we need to keep the structure of the GNSO simple.
Agree. This means a CNSO + constituencies to make believe the CNSO is representative (double representativity is even accepted there !)
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).
No problem. Give a vote to Danny as a registrant specialist (not a rep). The same to another for a non-registrants expert (not a rep). When you want a barrister you select and pay him, you do not vote to elect him. The fun was to try to see if the USG could organise an Internet polycracy. That dream is over. It has transfered to the WSIS/IGF. ICANN is the US International Network Agency. There will be others (like RIRs) for other areas and interests. Our job is to help their emergence in best tuning the ICANN to protect the US International Network's user interests; because we are some of them, and to serve as a good example to other similar European, Chinse, Indian, Peruvian, NY, Belin, Paris, etc. agencies.
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.
Correct. We only need to tell registrants to send mails to Danny and to tell non registrants to send mails to Roberto. Inputs will be better presented by them to the Board.
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.
This is an other problem. You speak of "'customers", I speak of "owners" :-) jfc 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@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827