Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

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

Karl and all assembly members, stakeholders/users or other interested parties,

  Here here Karl!  I could not agree with your comments and thoughts
here more.  I do believe as many other stakeholders/users obviously do
that the so called obtuse "Reform" effort that the ICANN staff and to a lesser

extent the ICANN BoD is trying to sell as a consensus, which it obviously
is not, is borne of the fact that you and Andy got elected to the ICANN
BoD by stakeholders/users in the only At-Large election ICANN has
held much to the than existing Interim BoD members and staff's surprise
and dismay.  Hence it is obvious beyond reasonable question that what the
now "Reform" flim-flam is to reduce or even eventually eliminate the
voice and vote of ANY and ALL stakeholders in policy decisions
for the management of the Internet.

  I also agree as we all know that most stakeholders/users, that the
NC does need to go and that as far as DNS issues and policies that
GA members along with the other, yet incomplete constituencies
should elect all of the NC members or vote directly along with
the atlarge members, on any DNS issues that would perhaps
become policy.  This was the promise of the WHite paper and the
MoU.  And it is a promise that the present ICANN BoD by in large,
and especially the ICANN staff have broken.  Hence the Rebid
resolution was so strongly supported by GA members and many other
stakeholders/users across the globe...

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> As I read this discussion, it seems to me that it is between those who are
> willing to accept a subordinate and nearly voiceless status and those who
> are not.
>
> Under the current regime and under the "reform" plan(s), the GA is a toy
> body that is allowed to exist as a kind of placebo for what, in ICANNland
> are "the lower classes", those who use the net (and who ultimately pay the
> costs.)  The so-called "reform" further reduces the GA.  Personally, I
> believe that the converse ought to be the path - that the names council
> should be abolished and replaced by a new entity that consists only of
> people elected by the GA.
>
> I object most strenuously to the "stakeholder" notion that is infused
> throughout ICANN now and proposed that certain people, merely by virtue of
> their affiliation with groups or concepts such as intellectual property or
> DNS registries, more worthy than you or I, to sit on those bodies, such as
> the names council - and in less than two months, on the board - that
> actually have powers to make decisions about Internet policies.
>
> As for "moderated" - we have seen ICANN's notion of "moderation", a system
> in which communications is so crabbed and limited that the "result" is not
> a group position hammered out and agreed upon by counted votes, but
> instead is a mishmosh of opinions that is so unfocused that NC or "staff"
> can do a bit of exgesis to justify whatever it wanted to do in the first
> place.
>
> ICANN's "moderation" as censorship is deep seated - ICANN ignored the
> work of the IFWP, ICANN labeled as "arrogant" and "juvenile" those who
> petitioned for a delay in the UDRP that was railroaded through the
> proto-incompletely formed DNSO, and ICANN's "staff" has "moderated" me by
> silently refusing to publish any of my own writings on ICANN's web site,
> despite the routine posting of similar materials by other directors and
> affiliates.  How often has the board of directors (or staff) "moderated"
> the DNSO by ignoring its decisions - such as about WLS or .org?
>
> The GA does need process - I have long been an advocate of an form of
> Roberts rules modified for electronic contexts - but if the GA needs
> anything, it is not "moderation".  Quite the contrary, it needs to as a
> group make a clear resolution, and vote on that resolution, about what it
> sees as its role.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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