Roberto, There are always proposals that are at odds with recommendations tendered by independent examiners. Your own BGC recommendations don't accord exactly with the LSE Recommendations, and the proposals that will be put forth by the BC-IPC-ISP cross constituency will assuredly be at odds with your own recommendations. You know, for someone that supposedly is championing a voice for individuals in the GNSO, you haven't exactly gone the extra mile by invoking the Board's authority to create a new constituency on its own motion as allowed for in the bylaws (Article X, Section 5, Paragraph 5). If you're so committed to enhancing representative opportunities, why don't you just do the right thing for once and establish the necessary constituencies by Board fiat? Why all the silly games? best regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:

This proposal is at odds with the outcome of the GNSO Review, who has recommended to create a non-contractual, non-commercial stakeholder group, who should include, besides the current NCUC, individual registrants, research&academia, civil society, etc. If this proposal will be endorsed by the Board, it would look funny to create at the same time, in the framework of the NomCom review process, a duplicate appointment from a similar stakeholder group. Similar considerations hold for a registrants advisory committee. The registrants are, by definition, limited in scope to the domain name system. Their contribution, therefore, will be related to the policy making process that is currently within the scope of the GNSO. The appropriate place of this group will therefore be as part of the stakeholder group system in the GNSO. Incidentally, it would be a great achievement for giving a voice to the individual registrants, which was something that has been attempted, without success, since the beginning of ICANN. On the other hand, if this is a proposal that is trying to lump together commercial and non-commercial registrants in an initiative that indicates a target that is not achievable, like an advisory committee, it will at the most achieve two results: undermine the ALAC, and prevent for the nth time the creation of a voice for individuals in the GNSO.

Cheers, Roberto

...

-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, 08 April 2008 15:10 To: vanda@uol.com.br Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements

Vanda,

These are the comments that I today sent to the BGC.

Enhancing Public Participation in the GNSO

When ICANN's Evolution and Reform Committee first conceptualized the service of Nominating Committee appointees in the GNSO, it understood that these appointees were to function "without any real or perceived obligations to any particular constituency" and "as the neutral tiebreakers".

While we await the issuance of the BCG's "NomCom Improvement Process" document, I would like to tender a simple proposal for consideration. I believe that we are at the point where we may augment our thinking to regard these appointees as "representatives of the public interest".

With this concept in mind, I would propose allowing these appointees to function as a defacto "public constituency". This constituency would have it's own listserv, a website, regularly scheduled teleconferences, etc. (all the normal trappings of a constituency) that would allow the public to properly interact with its designated representatives.

To implement this proposal, all that is called for is a tiny modicum of Staff support to get this virtual constituency up and running.

All other current participants in the GNSO have such mechanisms at their disposal. It's time to give the Nominating Committee appointees the same set of tools that others enjoy to better do their jobs.

______________________________________________________________

...

______________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l

ists.icann.org

...

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Roberto, I have long been of the view that ICANN will never countenance a constituency for individuals, not because such a move "might" alienate the Cross-Constituency folk -- the earlier DNSO Review process made clear their intent to never allow for such a constituency to be formed -- but rather because ICANN has no desire to allow for a space in its organization within which ICANN critics, hotheads, dissidents, troublemakers and the like can band together to aggressively bash ICANN on every occasion where such bashing is warranted. This is why we no longer have a General Assembly as a representative body. The GA chose to call for a re-bid of the ICANN contract with the DOC and were rewarded for their principled stand by being structurally eliminated in the 2002 ICANN Palace Coup d'Etat. Let's face it... ICANN doesn't tolerate criticism well. It seeks to eliminate or marginalize those that oppose its will. This also readily explains the behaviors of some in Senior ICANN Management subsequent to the criticisms that emerged in the JPA MId-Term Review. But we can talk about that privately at a later date. What you have proposed through the BGC effort has forced the BC-ISP-BC contingent to come to terms with the fact that unless they manage to somehow insert another body into the Non-Commercial grouping, Milton will get invariably get four votes (and this infuriates them). So, they have started looking for ways to temper what they perceive to be a bad situation. As they most certainly do not want an individuals constituency, a registrants constituency or a domain name holders constituency (whatever you want to call it) in their midst, they are hoping to construct an "at-large alternative" with your blessing. What will emerge in their proposal will not be an individual registrants group, but will likely be yet another Civil Society aggregate, some type of organizationally-based ALAC clone. At the end of the day we will not get an individuals constituency. You have noted the Board is not keen on the notion of endorsing an individuals group (and they have a prior history of ignoring petitons to that end); I have noted that the Cross Constituency (and perhaps others) will find a way to oppose, stall or otherwise impede such an effort as they earlier have done. Accordingly, I seek to protect the public interest by allowing the current nomcom appointees to represent the public voice. No, it wouldn't be a traditioanl constituency in that members would not be electing their officers -- they are, after all, appointees -- but the world of individuals could interact with these councillors and offer guidance (of course, the nomcom councillors would always be at liberty to vote their conscience). In my proposal individuals at least have a chance of having their views advocated; in your proposal an individual registrants constituency (as opposed to an organizational amalgam) will never emerge -- you're trying to sell a fantasy to those that understand the politics as well as you do, and we're not buying the sales pitch. No one is trying to sabatoge your plan. Your plan on behalf of registrants is not playing out as you expected, and it certainly won't result in the emergence of an individuals constituency. The deck has already been stacked against that option. Perhaps I am a more of a realist than you (which I why I have offered up a reasonable alternative). We don't need a milquetoast Civil Society grouping in the GNSO. What we need are voices that will defend the registrant interest when calamities arise. The ALAC/Civil Society/Non-commercial-orgs did little-to-nothing to protect the registrant interest when the RegisterFly calamity impacted us all. We need a better set of representatives in the GNSO. I can count on the likes of Jon Bing, Olga and Avri to advocate on the behalf of the registrant community if they are supported with mechanisms that allow for the public to express its views to them; I can't rely upon those that pretend to be the at-large to do the same. Best regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:

Danny:

...

You know, for someone that supposedly is

championing a voice

...

for individuals in the GNSO, you haven't exactly gone the extra mile by invoking the Board's authority to create a new constituency on its own motion as allowed for in the bylaws (Article X, Section 5, Paragraph 5).

I thought you knew me by now. I believe that there are two possible behaviours: one that is to look at the real world, and evaluate the possibility of a success, and play your cards trying to maximise success, even this is not what you would like in your own ideal world. The other one, is to grandstand behind your opinions, and have an infinite series of insuccesses, but maintaint virginally intact your right to complain about the rest of the world who does not understand that they are wrong. I had only very limited success in embracing the first approach, but I'm not the type of person who would ever go the other way. I claim that the (many) failures in my life are primarily lack of understanding from my part of the global picture, or lack of understanding from my part of the best strategu to get thisngs done, and therefore I learn lessons that might allow me to do better next time. To blame failures on cynic and cruel fate, or on the misunderstanding of the rest of the world of the one and only Truth that I represent, is just not my style.

...

If you're so committed to enhancing representative

...

opportunities, why don't you just do the right thing for once and establish the necessary constituencies by Board fiat?

For the simple reason, that you should know very well, that it would never fly. Sure, I will have my hour of spotlight, maybe even some press coverage, but the motion would miserably fail. My problem has been, rather, to try to understand "why" it would fail. And my personal answer (and I might be wrong, so I would appreciate comments, preferring the ones who would provide rational explanations, rather than integralistic views of the world) is that the creation of an additional constituency in the GNSO would have altered the balace of power of the constituencies, and would tharefore have the immediate opposition of who felt their power position threatened. And the Board would have chosen not to go into open opposition to the GNSO constituencies (rightfully so, IMHO). So, what the GNSO Review WG has proposed, is a mechanism by which the creation of new constituencies does not alter the balance of voting among stakeholder groups. You might have noticed that the attitude has already changed: nobody anymore opposes the introduction of individual registrants, quite the contrary, the only concern I have heard, quite insistently, is about how would the non-contractual, non-commercial, stakeholder group be polulated with interests beyond the ones currently represented by the NCUC. I don't know whether this proposal will be endorsed by the Board. But I can assure you that, if accepted, the creation of an individual registrants group will be just the matter of time. And a short time, just few months. And I am sure that you perfectly know that, even if you try to play dumb. And this is the exact reason why you are devoting all your energy to propose all sorts of alternatives: to sabotage this plan.

...

Why all the silly games?

I was thinking to ask this very question to you. As you see from the above, I have an opinion on why you play these silly games. But if you have a different one, I'm open to listen. Just please don't give me the usual lecture on how nice was the time when we had elected at-large directors.

Cheers, Roberto

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Danny, So, if I understand correctly, the essence of our disagreement is that I believe that we are now creating the conditions for a participation of the individual users in the GNSO, via the stakeholder groups, while you believe that this is not achievable, and therefore that it is appropriate to find other ways. Fair enough. However, it is clear that if we diversify the solutions, and disperse the scarce forces in too many directions, the chances of achieving something are slimmer. I cannot convince you that my way is better than your way, and the probability that you can convince me of the contrary is also rather slim. The only think that I would ask you to consider is the fact that we do now have, for the GNSO, a window of opportunity that we did not have in the past, and that this window will not remain open indefinitely. The current schedule is that a decision will be taken by the Board in Paris. Following that decision, we need to have a period of adjustment: it is not realistic to say that, whatever the new structure of the Name Council would be mandated by the Board, the change will take place immediately. If we go from the current "3 reps for each of the 6 constituencies + 3 NomCom" to a "4 reps for each of the 4 stakeholder groups + n NomCom (to be defined by NomCom Review)", this does not mean that at the end of June 2008 we send back home the current Name Council and we call for new elections. We most probably define a process by which we transition in a reasonable amount of time (1 year? Just throwing in a figure from the blue) from the old to the new structure. In this window, new constituencies can be formed, and adjustments to the current constituencies will be made. This is, IMHO, the unique opportunity to act, also because, as you have noted in your comments, the NCUC cannot remain the sole representative of the whole non-contractual, non-commercial stakeholders group. Building new constituencies to fill in the empty space is in no way preventing other structures to remain in place (like the ALAC), as long as they serve a different purpose (ALAC is an advisory body, with scope extended to all aspects of the internet affecting individual users, therefore not limited to the registration of domain names, while an individual registrants constituency will look only at that aspect, and participate in the GNSO PDP for this aspect). It is also not preventing other mechanisms or structures to be put in place. But, as I said, I would rather see all those who demand a representation for individuals in the process to temporarily set aside their differences and join forces during the period in which this window of opportunity will remain open to achieve some tangible result. It would not be a revolution, not the direct election of directors, not a majority voice in the PDP, but still a situation that would be better than the one we have today. Cheers, Roberto

-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2008 03:59 To: Roberto Gaetano; vanda@uol.com.br Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements

Roberto,

I have long been of the view that ICANN will never countenance a constituency for individuals, not because such a move "might" alienate the Cross-Constituency folk -- the earlier DNSO Review process made clear their intent to never allow for such a constituency to be formed -- but rather because ICANN has no desire to allow for a space in its organization within which ICANN critics, hotheads, dissidents, troublemakers and the like can band together to aggressively bash ICANN on every occasion where such bashing is warranted.

This is why we no longer have a General Assembly as a representative body. The GA chose to call for a re-bid of the ICANN contract with the DOC and were rewarded for their principled stand by being structurally eliminated in the 2002 ICANN Palace Coup d'Etat. Let's face it... ICANN doesn't tolerate criticism well. It seeks to eliminate or marginalize those that oppose its will.

This also readily explains the behaviors of some in Senior ICANN Management subsequent to the criticisms that emerged in the JPA MId-Term Review. But we can talk about that privately at a later date.

What you have proposed through the BGC effort has forced the BC-ISP-BC contingent to come to terms with the fact that unless they manage to somehow insert another body into the Non-Commercial grouping, Milton will get invariably get four votes (and this infuriates them).

So, they have started looking for ways to temper what they perceive to be a bad situation. As they most certainly do not want an individuals constituency, a registrants constituency or a domain name holders constituency (whatever you want to call it) in their midst, they are hoping to construct an "at-large alternative" with your blessing. What will emerge in their proposal will not be an individual registrants group, but will likely be yet another Civil Society aggregate, some type of organizationally-based ALAC clone.

At the end of the day we will not get an individuals constituency. You have noted the Board is not keen on the notion of endorsing an individuals group (and they have a prior history of ignoring petitons to that end); I have noted that the Cross Constituency (and perhaps others) will find a way to oppose, stall or otherwise impede such an effort as they earlier have done.

Accordingly, I seek to protect the public interest by allowing the current nomcom appointees to represent the public voice. No, it wouldn't be a traditioanl constituency in that members would not be electing their officers -- they are, after all, appointees -- but the world of individuals could interact with these councillors and offer guidance (of course, the nomcom councillors would always be at liberty to vote their conscience).

In my proposal individuals at least have a chance of having their views advocated; in your proposal an individual registrants constituency (as opposed to an organizational amalgam) will never emerge -- you're trying to sell a fantasy to those that understand the politics as well as you do, and we're not buying the sales pitch.

No one is trying to sabatoge your plan. Your plan on behalf of registrants is not playing out as you expected, and it certainly won't result in the emergence of an individuals constituency. The deck has already been stacked against that option.

Perhaps I am a more of a realist than you (which I why I have offered up a reasonable alternative).

We don't need a milquetoast Civil Society grouping in the GNSO. What we need are voices that will defend the registrant interest when calamities arise. The ALAC/Civil Society/Non-commercial-orgs did little-to-nothing to protect the registrant interest when the RegisterFly calamity impacted us all. We need a better set of representatives in the GNSO. I can count on the likes of Jon Bing, Olga and Avri to advocate on the behalf of the registrant community if they are supported with mechanisms that allow for the public to express its views to them; I can't rely upon those that pretend to be the at-large to do the same.

Best regards, Danny

--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:

...

Danny:

...

You know, for someone that supposedly is

championing a voice

...

for individuals in the GNSO, you haven't exactly gone the extra mile by invoking the Board's authority to create a new constituency on its own motion as allowed for in the bylaws (Article X, Section 5, Paragraph 5).

I thought you knew me by now. I believe that there are two possible behaviours: one that is to look at the real world, and evaluate the possibility of a success, and play your cards trying to maximise success, even this is not what you would like in your own ideal world. The other one, is to grandstand behind your opinions, and have an infinite series of insuccesses, but maintaint virginally intact your right to complain about the rest of the world who does not understand that they are wrong. I had only very limited success in embracing the first approach, but I'm not the type of person who would ever go the other way. I claim that the (many) failures in my life are primarily lack of understanding from my part of the global picture, or lack of understanding from my part of the best strategu to get thisngs done, and therefore I learn lessons that might allow me to do better next time. To blame failures on cynic and cruel fate, or on the misunderstanding of the rest of the world of the one and only Truth that I represent, is just not my style.

...

If you're so committed to enhancing representative

...

opportunities, why don't you just do the right thing for once and establish the necessary constituencies by Board fiat?

For the simple reason, that you should know very well, that it would never fly. Sure, I will have my hour of spotlight, maybe even some press coverage, but the motion would miserably fail. My problem has been, rather, to try to understand "why" it would fail. And my personal answer (and I might be wrong, so I would appreciate comments, preferring the ones who would provide rational explanations, rather than integralistic views of the world) is that the creation of an additional constituency in the GNSO would have altered the balace of power of the constituencies, and would tharefore have the immediate opposition of who felt their power position threatened. And the Board would have chosen not to go into open opposition to the GNSO constituencies (rightfully so, IMHO). So, what the GNSO Review WG has proposed, is a mechanism by which the creation of new constituencies does not alter the balance of voting among stakeholder groups. You might have noticed that the attitude has already changed: nobody anymore opposes the introduction of individual registrants, quite the contrary, the only concern I have heard, quite insistently, is about how would the non-contractual, non-commercial, stakeholder group be polulated with interests beyond the ones currently represented by the NCUC. I don't know whether this proposal will be endorsed by the Board. But I can assure you that, if accepted, the creation of an individual registrants group will be just the matter of time. And a short time, just few months. And I am sure that you perfectly know that, even if you try to play dumb. And this is the exact reason why you are devoting all your energy to propose all sorts of alternatives: to sabotage this plan.

...

Why all the silly games?

I was thinking to ask this very question to you. As you see from the above, I have an opinion on why you play these silly games. But if you have a different one, I'm open to listen. Just please don't give me the usual lecture on how nice was the time when we had elected at-large directors.

Cheers, Roberto

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com