RE: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org] 
|> On Behalf Of DannyYounger@cs.com
|> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:56 AM
|> To: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces
|> 
|> 
|> Patrick Corliss wrote:  "Could you confirm, for example, that there
are seven 
|> task forces and that you are the GA representative on three of them?"
This I 
|> can confirm. 
|> 
|> It was my expectation that GA members that purportedly represented
the 
|> interest of domain name holders would have clamored to join these
particular 
|> task forces, but it appears that these petty parliamentarians instead

|> preferred to devote their time playing king of the hill and engaging
in 
|> relentless sniping and back-stabbing rather than getting any
meaningful work 
|> done on behalf of the registrant community... that left it up to me
to 
|> represent the GA and registrants on these task forces in the absence
of any 
|> articulated interest on the part of these so-called champions of
domain name 
|> owners.
|> 
|> These task forces are invariably long term projects that require 
|> participation at several plenary sessions, participation in 
|> regularly-scheduled teleconferences, and hundreds of hours of work.
They 
|> require a commitment of time, travel and money.  Yet every time that
I 
|> presided over a GA session and looked out into audience, I noted that
the 
|> "active" GA membership was never there.  Yes, they are perfectly
willing to 
|> bitch and complain, but they are rarely prepared to participate to
the same 
|> degree as every other constituency that has chosen to work within the
ICANN 
|> process.   
|> 
|> Why is it that even the NCDNHC (that successfully operates even
without an 
|> acknowledged Charter) always manages to get its members to ICANN
sessions 
|> even though many are at a severe financial disadvantage, while GA
members 
|> from wealthier nations that ostensibly represent the registrant
community 
|> can't even bother to show up?  

<snip>

The NCDNHC as are a lot of the other constituencies, made up of
organisations.  Those organisations have access to substantial funds.
Even in the NCDNHC, a majority of the members have access to funds that
are raised in their communities.  The GA on the other hand is mostly
made up of individuals without the backing of organisations behind them.

The GA is not a constituency either and from concept has a different
perspective to a constituency.

Although I would personally like to attend the f2f meetings, it is not
financially viable for me as an individual and I can not justify even
limited participation in the GA or any other ICANN related activity
beyond an interest in humanity for the most part.  It does not impact on
my main income sources.

Perhaps it would be more profitable to actually find means to increase
participation rather than attack and berate those volunteers who
contribute to the GA?

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. 

--
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