Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

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

Danny and all assembly members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Patrick Corliss wrote:  "Could you confirm, for example, that there are seven
> task forces and that you are the GA representative on three of them?"  This I
> can confirm.
>
> It was my expectation that GA members that purportedly represented the
> interest of domain name holders would have clamored to join these particular
> task forces, but it appears that these petty parliamentarians instead
> preferred to devote their time playing king of the hill and engaging in
> relentless sniping and back-stabbing rather than getting any meaningful work
> done on behalf of the registrant community... that left it up to me to
> represent the GA and registrants on these task forces in the absence of any
> articulated interest on the part of these so-called champions of domain name
> owners.

  This is not entirely accurate Danny.  I volunteered as did others.
I and they were ignored.  One can only wonder why?  However
your point is still well taken here in that a large number of GA
members seem more interested in promoting themselves, back
biting others, or slurring others rather than getting some work done.
However I have still not heard or seen anywhere what happened
to Roelands Motion passed here by the GA members?  Can you
tell us what happened to that in MdR?  I suspect it was not even
presented...

>
>
> These task forces are invariably long term projects that require
> participation at several plenary sessions, participation in
> regularly-scheduled teleconferences, and hundreds of hours of work.

  Agreed.  As such, how come they are not open for any and all
whom wish to participate and work allowed to do so?

> They
> require a commitment of time, travel and money.  Yet every time that I
> presided over a GA session and looked out into audience, I  noted that the
> "active" GA membership was never there.

  This is because the ML's for those Task forces are closed Danny!
Why is that?

>  Yes, they are perfectly willing to
> bitch and complain, but they are rarely prepared to participate to the same
> degree as every other constituency that has chosen to work within the ICANN
> process.

  Many have tried to work within the ICANN process and are still being
ignored or disallowed to do so.  Why is that Danny?  When if ever,
will that change?

>
>
> Why is it that even the NCDNHC (that successfully operates even without an
> acknowledged Charter) always manages to get its members to ICANN sessions
> even though many are at a severe financial disadvantage, while GA members
> from wealthier nations that ostensibly represent the registrant community
> can't even bother to show up?

  Why should anyone need to go to the F2F ICANN sessions to get things
done?  Is this not the internet after all?

>  In my view, this is because those NCDNHC
> members are dedicated individuals and have made a commitment to the process
> even while knowing that their positions will routinely be voted down in the
> Council.  Because they have demonstrated their resolve through physical
> attendance, their minority views are, at the very least, respected.  When
> they comment on the At-Large Study report, the Board listens...

  Are you saying that physical attendance takes precedence to remote
participation?  I thought the ICANN board ruled on that in '99?
The result I believe was that Remote participation was on
an equal status.

>
>
> By contrast, when the GA speaks, decision-makers pay scant attention because
> the GA has earned absolutely no respect.  It's active membership is almost
> never there to either engage or lobby the members of the Board, nor is it
> there to interact with other constituencies -- it has demonstrated no
> commitment, and it is viewed by many as nothing more than a haven for
> crackpots and malcontents.

  We are here almost every Day Danny! So I am not sure where you
are coming from here... ?????

>  The GA as a collectivity of individuals is not an
> organization, it is nothing more than a discussion list for DNS afficionados
> and future tyrants.

  Than why are you the chair or did you run for chair if you believe this Danny?

>  It will never become more than it currently is because
> individually its members are not prepared to make a commitment to necessary
> involvement -- even those GA members that ran for ICANN Board seats would not
> commit to actually showing up at an ICANN meeting.

  Why should they need or be required to be physically present Danny.
Is this not the Internet I ask again.  Why cannot Internet video conferencing
be available or used for remote participation?

>
>
> If someone in this group wants to step up to the plate and become a Task
> Force member, I will willingly give my seat to that individual.

  Fine I am happy to do so!

>  Perhaps in
> such fashion there might actually be more than one or two people from the GA
> at the next Ghana session... but I doubt it.

  Many I am sure will be participating remotely.

>  It's easy to give lip-service
> to development and discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and
> participation in committees and task forces... it's entirely another matter
> to actually do the work.

  Agreed.

>
>
> In the three years that an individuals constituency has been discussed, has
> anyone even bothered to raise the necessary funds required for participation?

  This was assigned to Eric Dierker and he failed to carry it out.

>
>   Of course not, that would imply responsibility and a true commitment to a
> cause.    Perhaps we should just pretend that the $14,000 annual dues will
> magically appear or be graciously waived by the other constituencies that
> have conscienciously put their money up.

  Where is the account Danny?  How is it to me managed?  Whom
is authorized to manage it?  Whom and how is it decided or determined
who will manage such funds?

>  You can talk about restructuring as
> much as you like but there will never be a self-funded individuals
> constituency in the DNSO because there is no motivated membership, there are
> only those that use the cause of registrants to promote their own
> self-interest.

  The DNS and Domain name holders/owners of course have their
own self interests.  That is the free market system at work.

>
>
> I see no hope for the GA as currently constituted and have to ask, why should
> our Board members even want to have a GA in the restuctured ICANN?

  Because if they don't the problems will be even greater than they are
now.

>  There
> will be an elected At-Large to represent the user interest.  The GA will be
> nothing more than a useless appendage in the DNSO, a structural redundancy
> that will not be needed or desired when the At-Large is established.  If the
> Board Restructuring Task Force recommends the abolition of the GA, this will
> come as no great shock to me.

  I do expect the GA to be done away with as well.  But it would be
a mistake.

>
>
> I will also not be surprised to see all of you attempt to bolt to the
> At-Large the moment that the SO is created.  Not that any of you will
> actually involve yourselves in building the At-Large, organizing its
> structure and raising the necessary revenues, that would be too much too
> ask... instead you will wait until it is handed to you as a finished product
> by the ICANN staff and the ALSC, and then proceed to gripe about it's Charter
> and everything else because bitching is all that most of you are prepared to
> contribute to the process.

  This is an incomplete rant here Danny.

>
>
> It's easy to be a critic of ICANN.

  Yes the ICANN boD and staff make it easy.  Too easy.

>  It's harder to support its mission and to
> work to get things done.

  Yes it is.  And when some of us have done so it is rejected at our
expense by the ICANN BoD and staff.  That is hardly productive.

> Soon you will have a new Chair and Alt. Chair for
> the General Assembly... I offer them my sympathies.
> --
> 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@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