Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Sotiris wrote:-
>  (BTW
> Imbalance is also what has led to the current stand-still in the WG-Review
> Discussion.  I would just like to ask the Chair of the WG-Review why it is
> that
> he feels it more pressing upon his time to move forward matters in the GA
> List,
> to which he has no [to my knowledge] official relation, other than having
> been
> nominated as candidate for some nebulous election, and not instead push on
> to
> complete the WGr? )
>
> - Sotiris, I think you are being a little disingenuous here. The GA Chair
> issue is certainly
> not nebulous and since the GA is a topic on this list, it is hardly
> inappropriate for Greg to seek feedback from
> the membership as a way to move both the GA and WG-Review forward.
> His efforts deserve our support, not criticism.
>

Joanna, all I'm saying is that perhaps it would be more productive if we were to
focus our efforts on one List at a time.  Seems to me, some of us are involved
in multiple lists, and there is no discernible structure, movement, or
productivity in any of the 3 relevant MLs I happen to be currently subscribed
to.  I believe this is a cause for concern.  I'm not singling greg out per se...
but he is the Chair of the WG.

> Sotiris wrote:-
> One thing that could be done is to immediately call for a moratorium on all
> pending UDRP actions which do not involve infringement of a demonstrably
> coined
> word or clearly associative commercial interest/intent.  I think such a move
> would go a long way to bringing a little bit of respectability back to some
> areas of Justice.  Further, they could publicly lay aside their plans for
> *somehow* adding geographical indications and other excuses to a growing
> list of
> *reasons* for domain USURPATION.  Who gets a geographic name after all?  Do
> we
> live in the same reality?  Do they really want to start stirring up such
> problems?  Do you want to allow them to do so?  Do we?  There must be a
> reconsideration of priorities, and there should be evidence of goodwill on
> both
> sides.  Certain substantial moves have to be made, not merely gestures.
>
> - I think this is worth consideration, but hang on, we need a DNDEF don't we
> to come up with a viable alternative?

There should have been a DNDEF in place *before* ANY UDRP was even put in place.

> To
> date, the record shows that there are 5 AtLarge Directors on the Board.
> Correct
> me if I'm wrong, but are there not supposed to be 9?  If there are supposed
> to
> be nine, why are there only five?  Whose interests were being served when
> the
> decision to go with 5 was taken?  How much more plain can it be?
>
> - Could your world@large site be used to run elections for the other 4?

First, the site is not *mine*, but rather was donated by me to the @Large.  I
like to think of it as a place where the @Large can conduct much of their own
business before presenting any work to ICANN.  I suppose if we can build up
enough support for the site and we put a strong enough case to ICANN, it might
help them to do the right thing (i.e. allow the @Large to vote the rest of its
Directors onto the Board).

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

--
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