Re: [ga] Future of the GA and DNSO

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

It seems obvious to me that ICANN is a closed club.  They don't want
bottoms up or any criticism.  The blue print makes that clear, AFAIC.

It seems that none of the consistencies, except the non-commercial,
care about the GA because it does not serve their special interest.
Non-commercial made a pretty good presentation today in favor or the
GA. They don't have a profit motive.  If any other constituency spoke
out in favor of the GA, I missed it.  Please enlighten me.

There is lip service for the GA from ICANN and others, but no real
action. The GA can't do anything about it, either. It is like spitting
into the wind.

It is unfortunate and wrong, AFAIC, but it is the reality of it.
Unless a higher authority steps in, it is obvious that the GA will
play no meaningful part in ICANN.  I don't think that was the original
intention of the bottoms up structure.

We all know the arguments - white paper, MoU, etc. but there is no one
walking softly and carrying a big stick, either. I don't hold a lot of
faith in Congress actually doing anything either, let alone the DoC. I
hope I am dead wrong.

Someone once said, "Choose your battles wisely," but the GA is not
allowed to have any battles or even to take a position.  A vote is out
of the question, as well.

Someone also once said, "If you are going to attack the King, you must
kill him." The GA attacked by its recent vote, but didn't make the
most important part happen. That's almost like a self-imposed death
sentence.

It may be time, or close to time, for us to let a dead dog lie, face
the reality of it and just move on.  Who needs to continue to spend
precious time to fight windmills?

I hope I am wrong.

Thanks,


Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 3:32:48 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com <DannyYounger@cs.com> wrote:
Dcc> Hello Jon,

Dcc> The DNSO is still a mess, and no meaningful changes have been proposed in the 
Dcc> current Blueprint.  We have gone through two back-to-back DNSO reviews, and 
Dcc> now through the ERC review of the DNSO, only to have management conclude that 
Dcc> no structural repairs are needed....  I have to wonder what kind of 
Dcc> cigarettes these folks are smoking. 

Dcc> Clearly for a long time now, the Board has been getting poor policy guidance 
Dcc> from the Council, and I see no plan in place to change that situation, only 
Dcc> cosmetic changes calculated to piss-off the volunteers in the GA.  The last 
Dcc> thing that this Board needs is even less volunteers than it now has.  Denying 
Dcc> participants in the process the right to elect their own leadership and the 
Dcc> right to conduct their own votes (a right granted to every other constituent 
Dcc> group in the ICANN process) is a sure way to alienate the unaffiliated user 
Dcc> community that has endeavored to provide reasonable commentary on domain name 
Dcc> policy issues.  And let's be honest about it... the GA is an active 
Dcc> constituency in its own right with more involved members than all other 
Dcc> constituencies combined.  We are the defacto Public Interest group in the 
Dcc> ICANN process and have always articulated the outrage of the community.  

Dcc> Yes, the Board has the power to put a damper on its critics and to control 
Dcc> the GA in a heavy-handed top-down fashion... but is this really in the best 
Dcc> interests of the Corporation?  Unlike those in the constituencies that seem 
Dcc> to take every possible opportunity to suck-up to the Board, we tend to tell 
Dcc> it straight.  This is healthy, and there is value in having a loyal 
Dcc> opposition... it acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious decision-making.

Dcc> It would be capricious to make an arbitrary decision on the GA without having 
Dcc> had the benefit of consultation with its membership.  The ERC has not 
Dcc> consulted with us.  Please do the "right thing" and make sure that as an 
Dcc> impacted party we have the opportunity to fully debate these matters within 
Dcc> our own membership and to consult with the Board regarding our sentiments on 
Dcc> these eleventh-hour proposals.

Dcc> Best regards,
Dcc> Danny Younger
Dcc> --
Dcc> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Dcc> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
Dcc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Dcc> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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