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
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
On Apr 10, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Blogs.pn wrote:
The GA reached consensus through public voice on several issues
Chris - you miss my point. The fact is, there was never a GA. It never formed. It only really ever existed as a box on an org chart. There were a limited number of people that shouted out their views, but there was never anything organized or representative about it. I was there, you can't tell me the case. The GA back then was no more a representative entity than it is today. -r
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
participants (3)
-
Blogs.pn -
JFC Morfin -
Ross Rader