Re: Public Comments Sought on GNSO Improvements

Hello Rod,

What has been proposed is a feeble effort to disguise
the fact that ICANN needs to merge the BC-IPC-ISPCP. 
The "broad stakeholder groups" (umbrellas) make
no
sense when you realize that registries and registrars
will not be combined under a single umbrella. 
Instead, registries will remain a single constituency
as will the registrars (and now they need to figure
out what to do with the NCUC since they don't have
proper weighting for whatever Council voting approach
they will invariably adopt).

The LSE recommended establishing a register of all
GNSO members.  If GNSO membership will be recorded,
then I tend to favor completely dispensing with
constituencies and using a one-man-one vote approach
whenever voting is required (action by plebiscite).

The rest of the time, I will be comfortable with the
concept of fluid or dynamic coalitions that come
together (or fall apart) on an ad-hoc basis to either
support or oppose whatever policy recommendations may
be under discussion.

A formal constituency is only needed if constituencies
will have a measure of "power" in the new
construct. 
If we can transfer whatever "power" they now have
(such as the right to elect directors) to a GNSO
membership via plebiscite, then perhaps we can finally
dispense with the need for formal constituencies.


--- "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M."
<roddixoncyberspaces.org> wrote:

> I understand Joop's point about stakeholders and I
> agree with him.   
> It's possible, however, that pursuing an
> "Individual's Constituency,"  
> which includes individual domain name holders, is
> more pragmatic than  
> pursuing an IDNO constituency given the proposed
> GNSO Improvements.  
> The working group draft proposes creating three or
> four broad  
> Stakeholder Groups made up of one or more specific
> constituencies  
> from the self-formed stakeholder constituencies that
> have common  
> interests. In other words, it is likely that
> individual's and  
> individual domain name holder constituencies would
> be combined anyway  
> for purposes of voting within the GNSO.  If there is
> support for  
> these combined constituencies within the GNSO now,
> it makes sense  
> that we self-organize a more inclusive individual
> user's constituency.
> 
> Rod
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> www.cyberspaces.org
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 25, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Hugh Dierker wrote:
> 
> > If Joe is for it, that is it.
> > I am taking the afternoon off just to begin work
> on it.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Joe Baptista <baptistapublicroot.org> wrote:
> > Hugh Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I have given this proposition reasonable
time. I
> have noticed many
> > > posting since this mailing.
> > > I have specifically noted 0 posts in
opposition.
> > >
> > > There has been some discussion regarding
making
> the constituency
> > > exclusively an IDNO versus an all inclusive
> Individual Users  
> > constituency.
> >
> >
> > Sounds like the Inclusive NameSpace  Let's see
> if it gets off the
> > ground. A place thats inclusive of everyone
within
> the constructs of
> > icann. I'm all for it. I'm willing t try.
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > >
> > > Let us have some pointed discussion on the
> benefits and drawbacks of
> > > having either.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > */"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." /*
wrote:
> > >
> > > I think drafting a petition to self-organize
an
> "Individual's
> > > Constituency" is a good idea given some
of the
> content of the BGC
> > > WG working draft document. It appears that
at
> least 4 people on
> > > this list have affirmed that a petition is a
> good idea; that
> > > probably is enough of a "rough
consensus" of
> active participants
> > > to get started. Yes?
> > >
> > > Rod
> > >
> > >
> > > Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> > > roddixoncyberspaces.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Danny Younger
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Joop,
> > >>
> > >> In my estimation the Board Governance
Committee
> > >> doesn't have the balls to instigate
meaningful
> reform.
> > >>
> > >> They sat on the LSE Report for a full
year
> without
> > >> taking any action and have now released
an
> ICANN Staff
> > >> document (written with the assistance of
Miriam
> > >> Sapiro) that documents their ongoing
lassitude
> by
> > >> posing pointless "questions" at
a time when
> > >> answers/leadership should instead have
been
> > >> forthcoming.
> > >>
> > >> It is clear to me that the BGC has only a
very
> few
> > >> consensus points:
> > >>
> > >> (1) Unlike the PSO, they can't get rid of
the
> GNSO.
> > >> (2) They won't do anything until Vint
formally
> > >> retires.
> > >> (3) They recognize the need for
additional
> > >> constituencies but haven't yet
determined
> exactly
> > >> which arguments they will put forward to
once
> more
> > >> prevent the formation of an individuals
> constituency
> > >> (as they believe that such a constituency
will
> serve
> > >> to aggregate those known for their
vitriolic
> invective
> > >> against the Board).
> > >> (4) They understand that the GNSO Policy
> Development
> > >> process sucks and they're tired of
hearing the
> same
> > >> old hackneyed phrases from a sorry set
of
> warhorses
> > >> that should have been put out to pasture
years
> ago,
> > >> but they still don't have a plan to deal
with
> the
> > >> situation.
> > >>
> > >> I further believe that we can expect
Vittorio
> to again
> > >> come up with a wide range of ridiculous
ideas
> that
> > >> once more will engender no
community-wide
> buy-in that
> > >> will be pitched to us in the weeks
ahead.
> > >>
> > >> What is missing in the whole equation is
the
> > >> following:
> > >>
> > >> When the RegisterFly debacle unfolded and
Paul
> Twomey
> > >> publicly called for necessary revisions
to the
> RAA as
> > >> a proper way forward, who stood up and
defended
> the
> > >> rights of the registrant community? Not
one
> single
> > >> constituency in the GNSO asked for an
Issues
> Report
> > >> (even though they all understand that the
RAA
> can only
> > >> be changed on the basis of Consensus
Policy
> > >> agreements). Not one single RALO
discussed
> policy
> > >> changes that would better serve the
registrant
> > >> interest. Neither did the ALAC itself
call for
> an
> > >> Issues Report.
> > >>
> > >> The only people that stood up for the
impacted
> > >> community were Paul Twomey and his staff,
and
> members
> > >> of this GA list.
> > >>
> > >> I agree that a constituency needs to be
formed
> so that
> > >> amongst our peers we can act to better
protect
> the
> > >> registrant community (since no else is
standing
> up to
> > >> defend their interests), but I don't
agree that
> we
> > >> should use labels such as Individual
Domain
> Name
> > >> Owners or Registrants to define or name
the
> > >> constituency. Those names have too much
baggage
> > >> associated with them.
> > >>
> > >> Ultimately, the constituency is us -- we
that
> are
> > >> already on this list and those that will
> voluntarily
> 
=== message truncated ===



 
____________________________________________________________
________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/
mail 

Danny and all,

  Now that I have read this through several times I tend to
agree
with what you suggest for the GNSO *IF* the GA is
reinstated.

  It seems though Dr. Dierker our chair, is on a different
tangent
in desiring to create a new Constituency from an old and
failed
model, the defunct and discredited IDNO.  This course will
inevitably fail.

  If a new constituency for Independent registrants has a
chance
of being adopted, it will need to be from new whole cloth. 
And
even at that given the balancing act regarding voting on
the
GNSO council will be very difficult to do in a fair and
representative
manner, as you rightly indicate in respect to the NCUC.

Danny Younger wrote:

> Hello Rod,
>
> What has been proposed is a feeble effort to disguise
> the fact that ICANN needs to merge the BC-IPC-ISPCP.
> The "broad stakeholder groups" (umbrellas)
make no
> sense when you realize that registries and registrars
> will not be combined under a single umbrella.
> Instead, registries will remain a single constituency
> as will the registrars (and now they need to figure
> out what to do with the NCUC since they don't have
> proper weighting for whatever Council voting approach
> they will invariably adopt).
>
> The LSE recommended establishing a register of all
> GNSO members.  If GNSO membership will be recorded,
> then I tend to favor completely dispensing with
> constituencies and using a one-man-one vote approach
> whenever voting is required (action by plebiscite).
>
> The rest of the time, I will be comfortable with the
> concept of fluid or dynamic coalitions that come
> together (or fall apart) on an ad-hoc basis to either
> support or oppose whatever policy recommendations may
> be under discussion.
>
> A formal constituency is only needed if constituencies
> will have a measure of "power" in the new
construct.
> If we can transfer whatever "power" they now
have
> (such as the right to elect directors) to a GNSO
> membership via plebiscite, then perhaps we can finally
> dispense with the need for formal constituencies.
>
> --- "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M."
> <roddixoncyberspaces.org> wrote:
>
> > I understand Joop's point about stakeholders and
I
> > agree with him.
> > It's possible, however, that pursuing an
> > "Individual's Constituency,"
> > which includes individual domain name holders, is
> > more pragmatic than
> > pursuing an IDNO constituency given the proposed
> > GNSO Improvements.
> > The working group draft proposes creating three
or
> > four broad
> > Stakeholder Groups made up of one or more
specific
> > constituencies
> > from the self-formed stakeholder constituencies
that
> > have common
> > interests. In other words, it is likely that
> > individual's and
> > individual domain name holder constituencies
would
> > be combined anyway
> > for purposes of voting within the GNSO.  If there
is
> > support for
> > these combined constituencies within the GNSO
now,
> > it makes sense
> > that we self-organize a more inclusive individual
> > user's constituency.
> >
> > Rod
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> > www.cyberspaces.org
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 25, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Hugh Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > If Joe is for it, that is it.
> > > I am taking the afternoon off just to begin
work
> > on it.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > Joe Baptista <baptistapublicroot.org> wrote:
> > > Hugh Dierker wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have given this proposition reasonable
time. I
> > have noticed many
> > > > posting since this mailing.
> > > > I have specifically noted 0 posts in
opposition.
> > > >
> > > > There has been some discussion regarding
making
> > the constituency
> > > > exclusively an IDNO versus an all
inclusive
> > Individual Users
> > > constituency.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sounds like the Inclusive NameSpace  Let's see
> > if it gets off the
> > > ground. A place thats inclusive of everyone
within
> > the constructs of
> > > icann. I'm all for it. I'm willing t try.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > joe baptista
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Let us have some pointed discussion on
the
> > benefits and drawbacks of
> > > > having either.
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > */"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." /*
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think drafting a petition to
self-organize an
> > "Individual's
> > > > Constituency" is a good idea given
some of the
> > content of the BGC
> > > > WG working draft document. It appears
that at
> > least 4 people on
> > > > this list have affirmed that a petition
is a
> > good idea; that
> > > > probably is enough of a "rough
consensus" of
> > active participants
> > > > to get started. Yes?
> > > >
> > > > Rod
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> > > > roddixoncyberspaces.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Danny
Younger
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Joop,
> > > >>
> > > >> In my estimation the Board
Governance Committee
> > > >> doesn't have the balls to instigate
meaningful
> > reform.
> > > >>
> > > >> They sat on the LSE Report for a
full year
> > without
> > > >> taking any action and have now
released an
> > ICANN Staff
> > > >> document (written with the
assistance of Miriam
> > > >> Sapiro) that documents their ongoing
lassitude
> > by
> > > >> posing pointless
"questions" at a time when
> > > >> answers/leadership should instead
have been
> > > >> forthcoming.
> > > >>
> > > >> It is clear to me that the BGC has
only a very
> > few
> > > >> consensus points:
> > > >>
> > > >> (1) Unlike the PSO, they can't get
rid of the
> > GNSO.
> > > >> (2) They won't do anything until
Vint formally
> > > >> retires.
> > > >> (3) They recognize the need for
additional
> > > >> constituencies but haven't yet
determined
> > exactly
> > > >> which arguments they will put
forward to once
> > more
> > > >> prevent the formation of an
individuals
> > constituency
> > > >> (as they believe that such a
constituency will
> > serve
> > > >> to aggregate those known for their
vitriolic
> > invective
> > > >> against the Board).
> > > >> (4) They understand that the GNSO
Policy
> > Development
> > > >> process sucks and they're tired of
hearing the
> > same
> > > >> old hackneyed phrases from a sorry
set of
> > warhorses
> > > >> that should have been put out to
pasture years
> > ago,
> > > >> but they still don't have a plan to
deal with
> > the
> > > >> situation.
> > > >>
> > > >> I further believe that we can expect
Vittorio
> > to again
> > > >> come up with a wide range of
ridiculous ideas
> > that
> > > >> once more will engender no
community-wide
> > buy-in that
> > > >> will be pitched to us in the weeks
ahead.
> > > >>
> > > >> What is missing in the whole
equation is the
> > > >> following:
> > > >>
> > > >> When the RegisterFly debacle
unfolded and Paul
> > Twomey
> > > >> publicly called for necessary
revisions to the
> > RAA as
> > > >> a proper way forward, who stood up
and defended
> > the
> > > >> rights of the registrant community?
Not one
> > single
> > > >> constituency in the GNSO asked for
an Issues
> > Report
> > > >> (even though they all understand
that the RAA
> > can only
> > > >> be changed on the basis of Consensus
Policy
> > > >> agreements). Not one single RALO
discussed
> > policy
> > > >> changes that would better serve the
registrant
> > > >> interest. Neither did the ALAC
itself call for
> > an
> > > >> Issues Report.
> > > >>
> > > >> The only people that stood up for
the impacted
> > > >> community were Paul Twomey and his
staff, and
> > members
> > > >> of this GA list.
> > > >>
> > > >> I agree that a constituency needs to
be formed
> > so that
> > > >> amongst our peers we can act to
better protect
> > the
> > > >> registrant community (since no else
is standing
> > up to
> > > >> defend their interests), but I don't
agree that
> > we
> > > >> should use labels such as Individual
Domain
> > Name
> > > >> Owners or Registrants to define or
name the
> > > >> constituency. Those names have too
much baggage
> > > >> associated with them.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ultimately, the constituency is us
-- we that
> > are
> > > >> already on this list and those that
will
> > voluntarily
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
________________________
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/
mail

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k
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 jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827