Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request - Roberto punts...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Milton,
>
> >
> >Who is to determine who "represents" individuals? You, Roberto?
> >A group of Board members, 4 of whom were never elected by
> >anybody, 9 of whom were elected with grand totals of 5 votes,
> >10 votes?
> >
> >What you are telling me is precisely that such subjective and
> >highly politicized criteria will indeed be applied again. Now why
> >should anyone go to the enormous trouble to organize a
> >constituency knowing that?
>
> Because they have an interest in it to succeed?

  Despite that interest, what ever it might be, Miltons question/comment
is still valid given the history thus far.  The blocking tactics or the ICANN
BoD and staff also the NC, has disenfranchised thus far, the vast
majority or stakeholders and led to policy decisions, such as the present
version of the UDRP, the Registrar policy/contracts, and the Registry
"Selections" for new TLD's, that do not reflect the vast majority of
even participating stakeholders.

>
>
> Let me make an example.
> When workers became self-organized in what has eventually become the unions,
> the point was not to have endorsement in principle from "the powers to be",
> but to define what was wrong (from the workers POV), to get as many people
> involved, and from that on the organization was built.

  Indeed you are quite correct.  But when the "Powers that be", namely the
ICANN BoD and staff in particular have blocked every effort through
various tactics and means available to them, these stakeholders have been
essentially cheated of their just potential positions and due.

>
> All Constituencies currently in the DNSO have some specific (corporative?)
> issues on the table that they want to push. IP have the interests of the TM
> holders, ccTLDs the interests of the national Registries, and so on. So it
> would seem logical to write down a chart of rights of the individual user
> (if we want to target the user), or the individual DN Holder/Registrant (if
> we want to limit to this latter subset).

  The individual DN Owner/Holder is the vast majority of the stakeholders.

>
> I have some points, just off my head:
> - the unbalance of the current UDRP
> - the interest of the "small guy" in the registration of names (which, IMHO,
> is not limited to individuals in the strict sense, but extends to small
> businesses)
> And I am sure others may identify more "needs" for a new Constituency.
> My opinion is that we have to start from here, to state what problems a new
> Constituency is trying to solve, get people that are victims of the current
> unbalance in power between "big guys"/Trademark owners and "little
> guys"/Individuals interested in the project, and make a proposal.

  We have been at this starting point from the very beginning Roberto!
Where have you been???

>
>
> This group would have solved the "representativity" problem, because they
> would speak for themselves, for their interests at stake, with also the
> openness to include more individuals with similar problems or interests on
> the way.

  Openness is supposedly guaranteed in the White Paper and the MoU.
Yet from the beginning the ICANN BoD and staff have denied it to
the vast majority of stakeholders.

>
>
> In other words, I would move from the field of political theory and social
> experimentation to the "practical" grounds of self-organizing to defend
> common interests.

  Social engineering is not a good area for ICANN to indulge itself into.

>
> Milton, you for instance, as a member of the academical world and member of
> ACM, are in a very good position to contact people and get them interested
> in participating, but I would assume that you will be able to get people's
> interrest more if you tell them what the programme of the group is.
> This is why I consider essential that we lay down a proposal, with purpose
> and charter, we collect signatures, *and then* we knock at the door of the
> NC and/or the Board.

  This has already been done several times such as the IDNO experience...

>
> To do the other way around did not work once, and I am afraid will not work
> again either. The problem is not the "high politization", is the fact that
> if you want to have somebody even looking at your case, you have to support
> it with facts and/or with pressure from the people.

  This has also been done as well.

>
> If we have few people and no clearly identified practical purpose (i.e. if
> we are unable to "build the case"), maybe we are just proving the fact that
> there is no need for action.

  No building of any "Case" is necessary in the forming of any constituency
in the strictest sense of the term.  As well is true in the bylaws of ICANN,
the White Paper, and the MoU.  So I, amongst obviously many others
cannot lend credence to this argument the you are making here, Roberto...

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html