Re: [ga] Independance Day

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Danny Younger wrote:

>
>Today in the United States we celebrate Independance Day.  This is a
>particularly apt moment to reflect upon grievances, upon lack of
>representation in the decision-making process, upon the lack of the right 
>to
>elect our own officials, and upon an organizational structure that 
>continues
>to disenfranchise the rights of individuals.


Good.
From my part, I am looking forward to an Independence Day for Netizens 
outside the United States to celebrate an Internet Governance that is not 
taken hostage by US Governemnt and US Congress.

Since you mention further below the taxation issue, I would remind that the 
taxes paid to ICANN are coming, for the time being, mostly from ccTLDs, and 
that those ccTLDs are located for the most part outside the US.
Therefore the rest of the world is financing the structure that is used by 
US Government to control the Internet.

I would not like to get into detailed discussion on the points you raise: 
people in the GA know that I don't like to declare wars, in particular when 
I don't have a large army to back up statements.
I think that, while the NC has without any doubt its own problems of 
performance, the GA cannot be taken as a shiny example of productivity.
In particular about the Individuals Constituency, since you make this 
example, we were unable to do anything more than repropose the same old 
things over and over. Maybe we should concentrate in getting more support, 
or a different proposal, or at least a charter for the new Constituency, 
before blaming somebody outside.

I am not saying that your analysis does not mark some good point, I am just 
saying that before asking for independence we have to demonstrate maturity. 
And maybe the efforts of members and officials of the GA should be directed, 
for the time being, in this direction.

Regards
Roberto


>
>The Non-commercial constituency and others are threatened by the potential
>loss of voting rights if they fail to pay for representation on the 
>Council.
>The ccTLD community has already inaugurated efforts to create a separate
>Supporting Organization, arguing that the DNSO is not sufficiently 
>attentive
>to its needs.  This is indeed a time to consider whether the DNSO is
>sufficiently attentive to the needs of the General Assembly.
>
>One of the issues facing our forefathers here in the United States was the
>question of taxation without representation.  They were being asked to 
>supply
>the fruits of their labour without the benefit of a voting voice in the
>legislative process.  We too are being asked to supply the fruits of our
>labour through contributions to a forum in order to confer legitimacy upon
>the ICANN process, and in like fashion we too have been denied not only the
>right to vote in the decision-making body of the DNSO, but we are now being
>denied the right to fully participate as top-down Task Forces have come to
>replace bottom-up Working Groups.
>
>This is tyranny.  When the Review Working Group was callously terminated by
>the leadership of the Council, we were promised the following:
>
>"The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the final WG D
>report and from the Review process to develop a new process to implement 
>the
>recommendations of the Review process. Full participation in this
>implementation phase is envisaged. It is understood that the structure of
>participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO
>working groups!"  
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00840.html
>
>Lies.  There is no full participation, there has been no improvement, only
>less participation, endless delays, and continued procrastination.  The NC
>Task Force report was issued on 17 February.  What progress has been 
>made?!!
>Do we have any published Terms-of-Reference yet?  No.  Has the new Review
>Task Force made any attempt to work in an open and transparent manner?  No.
>Do they have a publicly-archived mailing list where terms-of-reference have
>been discussed?  No.  What has been done?  According the last 
>teleconference,
>there has been some "drafting going on".  More backroom dealings.  Nothing
>out in the open.   At this rate, will there ever be an Individuals'
>Constituency?  Don't bet on it.
>
>The Council determined its need to silence the voices in the Review Working
>Group because we were engaged in serious discussions on structural changes
>that called for a complete re-organization of the DNSO.  We were not alone 
>in
>our conclusions... even the ICANN Board recognized the need for change and
>issued a resolution to address the issue:
>
>[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources to
>separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the DNSO as 
>it
>is constituted today and those which may result in changes in the structure
>of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.
>
>Where is the Council's proposal to change the structure of the DNSO?   
>There
>is no proposal, nor will there be one.  They will continue to defy the 
>Board
>and will continue to ignore the voices calling for change.  Change must be
>thrust upon the NC.  They will not reform themselves nor the DNSO.  In the
>interim, we all suffer from the consequences of their lassitude and their
>ex-parte deal-making.
>
>Why are there no more working groups?  It does not accord with the
>self-interest of the entrenched participants to allow for the opposing
>consensus view of the majority to be articulated.    They fear the prospect
>of 120 voices raised in discussion on a topic because the results may not 
>be
>to their liking.   We cannot have a working group on collisions in 
>namespace
>because we might conclude that ICANN is responsible and accountable for
>creating such collisions.  We cannot have a working group on the UDRP 
>because
>we might take a collective stance to decry the excessive influence of the
>intellectual property interests, and might actually shift the balance in
>favor of the individual against corporate interests.  We cannot have a 
>Review
>working group because we might challenge an abusive power structure.  We
>cannot have a working group on .org because only the Council has the wisdom
>to make the appropriate choices.  This is unmitigated elitism.
>
>There is not one single issue that should pass out of the DNSO without the
>full involvement of the General Assembly.
>Token participation in Task Forces is no more than a sop to keep us quiet.
>
>The issue boils down to this -- what course of action should the General
>Assembly take?
>
>Personally, I am in favor of following the lead of the ccTLDs and moving
>forward to a discussion of withdrawing from the DNSO in favor of a 
>Supporting
>Organization that would better guard the interests of individuals.  I look
>forward to your comments.  Happy Independance Day!
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--
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