Re: [ga] Comments on policy development recommendations

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

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On recommendation 18: Individual registrants are lacking as one of the
> stakeholder groups in this recommendation.  While they are not
> represented in the present DNSO, this is certainly not a reason not to
> include them in recommendations for a future, improved ICANN.
>   Representation of individual registrants' interests could either happen
> by creating a constituency consisting of existing consumer advocacy
> groups (if you want, take the IPC as a model), or by creating a
> constituency which actually tries to get individual registrants into the
> game.

  Such an effort has already been made and was partitioned to ICANN.
The ICANN BOD rejected the IDNO even after the NCC and other
GA members supported such a constituency.  Hence although this
recommendation is yet again being put forward, there is little or no
reasonable reason believe that the present ICANN BoD will
give any more consideration to such a constituency.

>
>
> Rec. 19: The Council should provide clear guidance whose decision the
> addition of new stakeholder groups should be.  In particular, it seems
> questionable to me whether this decision should be left to existing
> stakeholder groups who may perceive new stakeholders being added to the
> structure as a danger for their own base of power and influence.

  The council is suppose to be a servant to the stakeholders/users
of the DNS.  Presently and for it's beginning the Council has not
been such.  Therefore, although this is a interesting notion and
good idea, it is unlikely that the present council will be any where
near representative of the stakeholders/users given it's history
and the attitude flagrantly displayed by the ICANN BOD and staff...

>
>
> Rec. 22.  I'd like to see the council make a much clearer recommendation
> on who should participate in such groups.  In particular, participation
> should be possible for interested groups which operate outside the
> constituency structure, but have a clear stake.

  Many would agree with this notion.  I am one of those as are all
of our INEGroup members as well as many in the EU and Asia
regions of the globe.  Definitions as to what a "Clear Steak" is
has been in the past a controversial subject much gamed by the
present and past ICANN BoD and staff.  This was broadly,
and still is broadly considered a blocking factor or form of censorship
that the present and past ICANN BoD and staff have perpetrated upon
the stakeholder/user community and the ICANN BOD and staff
have clearly manipulated to the extent of being ridiculous.  As such
James Love's Motion for a rebid now before the GA and the NCC
seems to be the best way by which real and meaningful constructive
change can occur...

>
>
> Rec. 24.  Interim policy will only remain "interim" if its validity is
> limited in time.  I'd suggest that the council recommends that interim
> policy shall not be applied for more than half a year, and that there
> should be no more than two conecutive interim policies for any
> particular area of policy-making.

  Interim policy is in effect a joke and also too often used as a blocking
factor to stability.  Hence such sorts of mechanisms are damaging to
the stakeholders/users to that extent which is many times egregious
and nefarious.  And again, this yet another reason why James Loves
Motion for a rebid of the ICANN Contracts is a much more
attractive and productive method of effecting most needed
change and progress...

>
>
> Finally, one thing I'm missing in the recommendations is a General
> Assembly.  Of course, there are a number of roles one could imagine for
> a GA.  I suppose, however, that there are at least two functions any GA
> could realistically fulfill:  1. Serve as a channel by which individuals
> and parties not fitting into the constituency scheme can still
> participate in policy-making.  2. Provide a forum for broad
> inter-constituency exchange. Of course, the GA can only operate as such
> a forum when constituencies are actually interested in using it.
>
> For these reasons alone, the GA should neither be eliminated in the NC's
> recommendations, nor should it be ignored.  Instead, the council should
> recommend that a GA should continue to exist in the gTLD policy-making
> body; the GA's chairman should, ex officio, be a member of the Council
> outlined in rec. 20; the GA should be entitled to send representatives
> to the task forces outlined in rec. 22.

  This is a good idea if and only if such a chairman is elected by the
GA members and the GA is open to any and all interested parties,
which is currently is not...

>
>
> Many  of the members of the GA will, most likely, also call for a
> generally stronger involvement of the GA in the policy-making process.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler (mobile) <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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