RE: [ga] Re: destroyer of the GA/ Intentional?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
|> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 6:09 PM
|> 
|> Thank you for expressing your concerns.  I too have some 
|> concerns that I 
|> would like to share with you...  

O'boy, I go away for a few weeks ...

|> When the ICANN organization contemplates a new structure 
|> that only calls for 
|> Supporting Organizations for providers, developers, and users, the 
|> probability of the continued existence of the DNSO is either 
|> slim or none (and by my estimation, Slim has already left town).  

The DNSO, as currently structured, is a canard anyway. BTW, Excellent
analysis. I appreciate the summary, since I now have to catch back up.

|> When registries and registrars are promised their own SO 
|> with the right to 
|> elect their own Board members, they have no need for 
|> continued participation 
|> in a dysfunctional  DNSO (they are quite comfortable routing 
|> around this point of failure anyway).  

Registrars aren't registries, however much they may want to be.

|> Members of the Non-Commercial constituency have 
|> articulated that they see no need to attempt to raise the 
|> $30,000 in dues 
|> owed to the DNSO because they no longer expect it to 
|> survive.  

They may be correct. However, if the DNSO was stronger, they wouldn't have
paid anyway. Whom are they trying to kid? They simply don't have the money.
Actually, they can get it. But, with so many distructful people watching the
cash drawer ... it doesn't dare move. But, that's all beside the point.
Menbers of the DNSO shouldn't be funding the DNSO, that's what a levy on DNS
registrations is supposed to be for.

|> The ccTLDs 
|> have already indicated that they will no longer support the 
|> DNSO past the end of its fiscal year and expect to have their own SO. 

That's probably how it should have been from the start. But, to be honest, I
see no difference betwween them and any other registry. They should all be
treated the same. Registrars are a different story. There are producers and
there are re-sellers, registrars are re-sellers. They are parasites, not
producers.

|> The Business 
|> Constituency is already attempting to position itself on the 
|> provider side of 
|> the equation (much to the consternation of other providers 
|> that do not see such a "fit"),

That's good, because I don't see such a fit either. The BC are consumers,
unless they're *SPs (ASP, ISP, BSP, et al).

|> and Individuals will no longer have a pressing need to 
|> establish a constituency within the DNSO when they can have 
|> their own ALSO that will elect a minimum of six Board directors.  

DNS owners and end-users are the same thing?!?! Since when? This is getting
very patronistic here (Not you Danny ... the concept).

|> The Intellectual Property 
|> Constituency will have no difficulty settling upon a 
|> Standing Committee 
|> structure (comparable to the GAC), 

If we can get rid of the UDRP, I might buy it. However, we can't so I wont.
Resist WIPO at every turn. They are NOT your friends.

|> and the ISPs will simply have to decide 
|> whether they represent User interests or whether they are in 
|> fact to be  positioned among the providers.  

After what I've been through, in the past six months, the ISPs definitely do
NOT have end-user interests at heart. In case anyone hadn't noticed, there's
massive M&A activity going on there (more of a consolidation, actually). I
predict that the Bells will win, in the end. The Bells (RBOCs) are notorious
for poor end-user representation. In fact, they abuse users at every
opportunity. See your local Public Utilities Commision for proof.

|> No one will be left in the DNSO after this 
|> transition.   The DNSO is effectively dead.

You may be correct.

|> We are facing a new future.  You are welcome to spend your 
|> time clinging to 
|> the processes of the past, promoting motions and bringing 
|> pressing issues to 
|> the floor... but these actions will be overshadowed by the dynamic 
|> environment.  Very soon (in six weeks), the ICANN Board will 
|> act on the 
|> recommendations of the ALSC -- and nowhere in their report 
|> do they discuss the role of the General Assembly.  

The GA was only a sop to the ex-IFWP folks anyway. It has no power and might
as well not exist.

|> Together with Roberto I have spent all my time in Montevideo 
|> lobbying members 
|> of the Board, and others with influence, for the continued 
|> existence of the 
|> concept of the "Open Forum" as an integral part of ICANN 
|> structure.   We 
|> might be able to preserve a General Assembly; we most likely 
|> will not be able 
|> to reform or restructure the DNSO -- all attempts thus far 
|> have been met with 
|> opposition by the Council, and most of its current 
|> constituent members now 
|> have even more favorable options awaiting (in the 
|> restructuring of ICANN that 
|> will be forthcoming).

I have always maintained that the DNSO NC was the DNSO's worst enemy. I was
there when they formed the DNSO. It was a railroad job then and it's a
railroad job now. Tell me what's changed?

|> As I see it, your choices are limited -- you may either 
|> provide substantive 
|> input to the ALSC prior to their 26 October working deadline 

Yes, input that will be properly filed, posted, and ignored.

|> (thereby helping to shape the decisions that will emerge), 

feh, you're having a nice dream.

|> or you can go about your 
|> business-as-usual and await the decisions that will be 
|> foisted upon you.  

Which is what will happen anyway.

|> I prefer to become involved in the process to determine our 
|> own future.   

Just what makes you think that your input will be weighed? Having been
through this at least twice, all that will happen is that you will burn time
you could have spent more profitably elsewhere.

|> I hope that you will share your views.  The continued 
|> existence of the Assembly may well depend upon it.

As I said, the GA is a canard. It's continued powerless existance is an
insult. It should either gain power or die. After all these years, I don't
see the ICANN BoD suddenly giving the GA any power, do you ... honestly?

--
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