Dominik and all, Exactly my broader point, Dominik! What's much more important is that non-registrant users and independent registrants still have no voice or vote. The capture to which I alluded to and you plainly stated, remains. As such, the ecommerce aspects of economic prosperity will be so limited. Such a limit will be significant and solely or mostly in the hands of large commercial special interest groups. That's not a healthy economic paradigm. It is also a precursor to further fraud and abuse on a huge international scale. Dominik Filipp wrote:
Jeff,
You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG
onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
Dominik and all,
If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC.
So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this
proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants.
Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_
committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd
f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members
are
considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
Thanks
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG
on
GNSOCouncil Restructuring
At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our
representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire
to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.
Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and
also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.
ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required
for
a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the
next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this
statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.
More in the next 24hrs.
CLO
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
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