[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring

Fri Aug 1 04:20:32 EDT 2008

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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:alac-bounces at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl
> > Langdon-Orr
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM
> > To: alac at 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 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

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 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827