Re: [ga] Re: On Constituencies and the ERC

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

Danny, Vint, Karl and all assembly members,

  I believe that Danny and Karl are correct in as much as the
constituency model for the most part is a failure.  I also agree
that Danny makes a good argument that the ERC as a "Lock-in"
is a bad idea and that more pragmatic solutions/ideas should
be considered.  However Stuart Lynn's approach is not one that
is open and transparent nor is inclusive of the stakeholders/users
in commensurate with their actual STAKE in the DNS and
the Internet.

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Vint,
>
> I have an issue that I would like to discuss with you...
>
> There are some groups that actively discuss policy matters.
>
> Today alone there must have been at least 60 comments on the registrars list
> regarding WLS.
> The GA always participates (with hundreds of comments posted on this topic
> over the course of many months).
> The Public Forum also contains hundreds of comments as well.
>
> On the other hand, there haven't been ANY member comments at all regarding
> WLS on the IPC list.
> No comments whatsoever are to be found on the Non-Com list (and this covers
> several months).
> The ISP archives always return "Page not Found", and the members of the
> Business Constituency almost never have anything to say (which is probably
> why they don't publicly archive their list).
>
> To conduct a "voting" session of the Names Council when so many
> constituencies can't justify the position of their membership (since
> literally no discussion has taken place) in my view does not serve the best
> interests of the Corporation.
>
> Such a vote cannot possibly represent a "consensus" of the community.
>
> If the constituency approach is flawed to such a degree, with members of many
> constituencies almost never discussing the day-to-day "work" of ICANN, then
> what is there to truly favor the continuation of this particular constituency
> approach within the GNSO?
>
> Such non-participation is a major problem that warrants a fresh solution of
> the type first proposed by Stuart.
>
> I still see merit in the proposal put forward by the gTLDs that registries,
> registrars and registrants be organized in their own SO (with the other
> constituencies operating as Forums outside the SO structure).  As these other
> constituencies rarely seem to bring anything to the table that can be
> justified by actual member comments, this strikes me as an appropriate reform
> measure.
>
> I need to ask:  Are we "locked in" to the initial recommendations of the ERC,
> or is there still room to consider more pragmatic solutions?
>
> --
> 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 124k members/stakeholders 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