RE: [ga] Re: More BC Shenanigans

[Peter de Blanc <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Danny:

( In this posting I am speaking personally )

Your agenda would be better served by being more diplomatic, and
separating fact from speculation and "broad-brush" name calling.

Also, I am unclear about whether you are making this, and other recent
postings as GA chair, or as an individual.

I appreciated your initial enthusiasm when you gained the chair of trhe
GA. Your call to the Names Council `to "parcel out some of the work" to
the GA was eloquent and passionate. I really felt a desire to be
supportive of your new leadership.

Now, I am starting to be disappointed by your lack of objectivity and
diplomacy. The chair is supposed to facilitate consensus building, and
be a mediator and negotiator of positions.

You are not doing that anymore.

It makes me sad.

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
DannyYounger@cs.com
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 9:01 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: cgomes@verisign.com; jefsey@wanadoo.fr; bmjames@swbell.net
Subject: [ga] Re: More BC Shenanigans


Dear Chuck,

Part of the problem within the BC is that decisions are made without the

benefit of a vote of the membership.   For example, on the "Issue
Management 
Procedures" page of the BC website it states:

"Solidarity:
BC members shall abide by approved positions and the BC representatives
to 
the Names Council will be required to support such positions en bloc."

There was never a vote taken on this... and even if a vote were to be
taken, 
it would not be representative of the business community as the voice of

small business is not to be heard within the Business Constituency.

If the BC Charter is to be re-drafted, one NC member should always
represent 
small business, another medium-sized businesses, and the other large 
business.  This would be entirely appropriate as small and medium-sized 
businesses account for more than two-thirds of all domain name
registrations. 
 

Unfortunately, the BC will never reform itself into anything more than a

power-bloc that promotes the interests of Telcoms and intellectual
property 
groups.  A few active members dominate the constituency, and have every 
reason to continue abusing their power to the detriment of the rest of
the 
business community.   

During the entire time that I was subscribed to the BC mailing list, I
never 
received one email from anyone other than Phil Sheppard, Marilyn Cade or
the 
BC Secretariat.  There is no dialogue amongst the current members
because 
they can't be bothered to participate.  Every three months they are
afforded 
the opportunity for a business-paid junket to an exotic corner of the
world, 
and that is the full extent of their involvement.

When the BC reps claim that they are in consultation with the
membership, 
they are only in consultation with themselves.  There is certainly no 
dialogue on the BC list (which, of course, is one of the reasons why it
is 
not publicly archived).   The constituency is a sham.  It is a vertiable

clone of the Intellectual Property constituency, and in truth, those two

groups should be merged as they are nothing more than two sides of the
same 
coin.

While the membership roster of constituencies like the Non-Commercial 
continues to grow at a steady pace due to ongoing efforts at outreach,
the 
membership roster of the BC shrinks rapidly.  There is no outreach, only

lip-service paid to the need to involve small businesses.

It is no wonder that in this environment, no small business seeks to be 
associated with the BC.  There is no possibility of involvement if small

business concerns can routinely be voted down "en bloc".

The BC is a cabal, not a constituency.  There have been a sufficient
number 
of Charter violations to warrant revoking their membership in the DNSO
until 
such time as the deficiencies are cured, and there are certainly
questions 
with respect to lost paperwork and their handling of finances that would

probably warrant an audit.








--
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

--
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