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

[Dominik Filipp]

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




_______________________________________________
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