Re: [ga] ICANN Reform -- Process Issues

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Danny,

a) most of the substantive work is done during the teleconferences,
including one where slots were reserved for outside people including
several for the GA.  If you bother to read the minutes from the last one
you will note that I could have been accused of hogging the microphone.
b) more than once I have posted here reminding the GA that if there is
consensus I will carry to the TF (actually to either of the task forces
I serve on).

so before talking about denying representation, etc. it would be nice to
get the facts straight please. There may indeed be the problems you
speak of but I dont see that you have proved them.

The *specific* problem here that you are shining a light on is not the
Transfer TF. It is functioning of the GA.  Despite the best efforts of
the GA chairs, the GA has not been able to consistently come up with
consensus or even strongy delineated views, for me to bring to the
table. I would even bring to the TF table stuff from the GA that I
happen to strongly disagree with...should that arise. Im here to do a
job and I said I would do my best to represent, and...to the best of my
ability...I will.

Please, so much time is spent internally fighting and complaining about
the outside.  Can we not do a better job here in the GA?   A sure way to
miss out on the party is to not come prepared. I am no fan of ICANN or
its structure, etc. But while we are stuck with it, why do the best we
can instead of complaining?

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> 
> If we review the posts made to the Transfers TF since the first of this year,
> we can come to the following conclusions:
> 
> There have been no postings made by the ISP constituency, none by the IPC,
> none by the Non-Commercial constituency representatives that replaced Milton
> Mueller, no substantive comments by the BC representative that is not the
> Chair, and no postings by the representative of the GA.  What does this tell
> us?  We now have a thoroughly non-representative group in which only six
> people are currently participating through written comments, and not one of
> them represents the interests of registrants who are most affected by the
> issue of transfers.
> 
> The TF process only serves to lock in those who choose not to participate,
> and manages to exclude everyone else that has good cause to participate...
> and even those that can participate do so only in a limited fashion (there
> have been more postings made by the Chair's personal executive assistant than
> by the ccTLDs and gTLDs combined).
> 
> We have been arguing since Day One that registrants need to be included in
> the policy-making process, most especially when such policy-making directly
> affects their interests.  Recently we have seen a number of postings by
> Richard Henderson whose organization represents the interests of registrants.
>  There are other organizations as well that concern themselves with
> registrant issues.  But none of these organizations has ever been invited to
> participate in the process, and every attempt to include such groups has been
> rebuffed.  Its bad enough that there is no representation for registrants
> within either the DNSO or ICANN, but the fact that "interested parties",
> whose rights are ostensibly protected under our Bylaws, are routinely refused
> "participation" demonstrates how perverse the TF process has become.
> 
> This process (denying representation and participation to others that have a
> right to be involved) is the hallmark of the BC and several of their allied
> constituencies that control the NC.  They are at the root of everything that
> is wrong, sick, and putrid within the DNSO.  Let's not forget how often these
> groups acted in concert to deny the possibility of an individual's
> constituency.  It is this group that has summarily refused to establish open
> working groups, and which has steadfastly refused to even "discuss" the
> restructuring of the DNSO as proposed by the membership of the GA.  These are
> the folks that seek to muzzle the fair and open discussion of ideas so that
> only their views may prevail.
> 
> If we are to reform the ICANN, we need to take steps to curb the abuse of
> power not only at the Board level, but even moreso within the Supporting
> Organizations.  Members of the GA have no votes within the Council of the
> DNSO, and yet our active membership (that is not affliliated with any given
> constituency) far exceeds the membership of most other constituent groups.
> We have been denied representation in the decision-making process, and have
> witnessed the steady erosion of our remaining rights.  Instead of
> constituencies participating in the large open working groups of the GA, we
> now have only solitary GA participants in groups of the NC.
> 
> It is not time to "improve" the TF process.  It is time to thoroughly
> repudiate it as an artifice designed solely to limit input and to manipulate
> results.  When Stuart Lynn talks about the problems within ICANN, we all know
> that the blame for many of those problems lays right at the doorstep of the
> Names Council.  Most of their Task Forces have been doing a pathetic job and
> the guidance being offered to the Board is practically useless.  The
> Structure TF is a joke, the Review TF was a disaster, and the Transfers TF
> has accomplished next-to-nothing in the last five months.
> 
> We are now at the point where we all need to actively discuss the reform or
> replacement of ICANN.  The Non-Commercial constituency called for a working
> group to involve everyone in the process, but again the Council vetoed that
> idea and returned to a Council Task Force approach.  Having listened to the
> last TF teleconference, I am now fully convinced that this TF will also fail
> miserably, and will offer guidance only at such a high level of generality
> that its recommendations will be practically useless.
> 
> This Council is not prepared to learn from its mistakes (the DNSO Review was
> sufficent proof of that).  We must advise the Board that eliminating this
> Council in particular is in the best interest of ICANN and long overdue.
> 
> --
> 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
--
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