Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics - Rather, the "Black and Blueprint"

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

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Ross!
>
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but also
> >provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
> >The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
> >mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide a
> >very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
> >accomplished.
>
> The four elements in the Blueprint document are:
> -- GA mission: cross-constituency meeting place of both voting and
>    provisional constituencies
> -- GA steering: a GNSO Council member; GNSO Council responsible for GA

  This is very wrong approach in the "Blueprint".  The GA members themselves
and individually are responsible for the GA.  They ELECT a council member
to represent them on the DNSO NC.

>
> -- GA working method: exchange of information and ideas, discussion,
>    resource for the creation of WGs, TFs and drafting committees.

  TF's have failed for the most part as has been clearly demonstrated
on a number of occasions as was plainly evident in the .ORG TF.
Hence the WG approach that is open to any and all stakeholders/users
that are GA members or GA list members that wish to participate.
Anything less for a General Assembly is just another form of
Censorship.  AND CENSORSHIP IN ANY OF ITS FORMS
IS WRONG!

>
>    No decisions, recommendations, formal positions, votes.
> -- GA communication: moderated electronic discussion lists and forums

  This is also a form of CENSORSHIP, which has been recently
attempted by yourself and Thomas in the Rebid Motion.

>
>
> I agree that the ERC document somehow affirms the value of the GA,
> but the elements are convincing to a varying degree. I personally
> find the proposed GA working method to be consistent with the
> proposed GA mission, but the steering and the communication --
> if moderation really means pre-screening posts -- are impractical:
> Either a GA secretariat would have to be in place, doing nothing
> but screening postings, or (as Thomas demonstrated) there would
> have to be automatic filters mainly based on /persons/ which IMHO
> is a truly bad idea.

  Not only it is a very bad idea Alex, it is yet another form of CENSORSHIP
which is wrong!

> In addition, one should not underestimate the
> amount of work involved in the GA. The GNSO Council members do
> their Council work beside their regular job and even that is a
> lot of work (I heard rumours of people actually taking vacation
> to get their Names Council work done!).

  Oh my!  How terrible for them!  Mercy me!  (Sarcasm intended here )
I can't remember the number of times I have used some or all of
my vacation time to complete work on time!  As one of our past
presidents, Harry Truman once said, "if you can't handle the heat,
get out of the kitchen".

> Doing the GA as a side
> job of a side job looks like a recipe for desaster (but maybe
> that's just my power-hungry GA Alt.Chair perspective ;)).
>
> I wouldn't defend the GA's *current* state just because it's the GA.
> I believe the GA has currently not only a role as cross-constituency
> forum (and I'm very happy about every posting by someone who hasn't
> posted for a while!), it's currently the de facto individuals
> constituency, too. Such a double role is not a perfect solution
> for the future. The problem is that the Blueprint does not contain
> GNSO Council seats for an Individual constituency -- of course,
> there is currently no Individual constituency (and I hope nobody
> understands this as an invitation to re-discuss IDNO history!).
>
> I believe that if the ICANN structure follows that Blueprint,
> at least the criteria for the NomCom for the additional
> GNSO Council seats should reflect this current inbalance and the
> fact that gTLD registries, registrars, commercial, non-commercial
> domain holders and IP interests are already represented.

  So far or members that have reviewed the "Blueprint" see
it mostly as a "Black and Blueprint" to the stakeholders/users.

>
> Remember: In Stuart Lynn's original proposal, there was
> a GNPC seat for individual users and no seat for ISPs and
> Intellectual Property interests. Now, ISPs and IPC are back in --
> and the individuals are gone again. All the other groups mentioned
> as examples for provisional constituencies in the Blueprint are
> to *some* degree covered by existing groups: Small and large
> businesses in the Business Constituency, academics, consumer
> and civil society groups in the NCDNHC. As long as there is
> no organization which can speak for the entirety for individual
> domain holders, it would also be the NomCom's task to ensure a
> balance.
>
> With that, best greetings from Bucharest,
> /// Alexander
>
> PS: Off-topic: Let's try to build an ICANN that doesn't look
> like the monstrous Palace of Parliament across the street
> from the Bucharest Marriott -- /that/ is Stalinism (and some
> claim this is the second biggest building in the world):
> http://www.club-t.com/seikan/romania/Tourism/Bucharest/Palace%20of%20Parliament.jpg
> :)
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k 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:  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