[At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements

[Blogs.pn]

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 at tucows.com>
To: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Cc: "'At-Large Worldwide'" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "Danny Younger" 
<dannyyounger at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>