Re: [ga] "constituency" and "GNSO"

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

I agree with Jim Fleming's analysis.

ICANN *uses* constituencies to control its own agenda.

Whenever it feels like it, ICANN just moves the goalposts.

*Consensus* in ICANN-land means listening to a constituency when it conforms
to ICANN agendas, and overruling constituencies when they don't ... all
justified by the catchphrase "consensus".

You would think that there was "consensus" on all kinds of policy decisions,
if you listened to ICANN's spin.

But in fact, what you have is the same insiders running the show,
accountable to no-one except DoC, who keep ICANN in place for the sake of
their own DoC agenda.

"Constituencies" are part of the ICANN game, and the danger is that you
legitimise the game by taking part... look how the 'participants' in ALAC
have been cited by ICANN to legitimise the expulsion of the elected At Large
Directors (who are the true representatives of the *real* At Large
constituency)

Then there is "consultation" and "open dialogue" and "responsiveness"... so
you get ICANN's Public Forums marginalised as "a joke" by Stuart Lynn; a
failure to engage in open and detailed dialogue almost always evident; and
crass lack of responsiveness (which I can testify to, as it has now been 395
days since I submitted relevant and serious questions to Dan Halloran, and
he has never even acknowledged receipt of my mail.) I asked Paul Twomey to
respond over this, and that was over 3 weeks ago... and *he* has never even
acknowledged my mail either. And yet he says ICANN needs to be more
"responsive"... is this all just a front for DoC, along with 'consensus' and
'constituencies'?

Those who help finance ICANN have fasttrack access to the insiders... those
who challenge ICANN or ask awkward questions are just ostracised,
marginalised, and ignored... look at the (costly) treatment of Karl
Auerbach...

I still wait for Dan Halloran's response to my questions about fraud and
ICANN's relationship to registrars... but even if it was not just me (and it
isn't)... even if it was an At Large committee, set up by ICANN itself
 look at their treatment of ALSC) ... would they listen?

The constituencies get sucked into a "consensus" fuzz, and then ICANN just
does what it wants. Unless there was a structure which guaranteed true
democratic representation - established from the bottom up - so that power
passed from the present ICANN power clique to real people, then the
"constituencies" remain just part of the ICANN process for self-perpetuating
its own Board, its own staff, and (of course) most importantly of all, the
interests of the vested interests for whom ICANN is really run.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@ameritech.net>
To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>; Joanna Lane
<jo-uk@rcn.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:17 AM
Subject: [ga] "constituency" and "GNSO"


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> > Who can still say that domain name registrants do not need a
> > Constituency of their own in the GNSO?
> ====================================
>
> With all due respect, when you use terms like "constituency" and "GNSO"
you are buying into a structure
> that is pre-determined to be biased **against** the "domain name
registrants".
> That just helps to perpetuate "the Big Lie Society", which un-educated
netizens have no idea they are endorsing.
>
> Why would that be good for domain name registrants ?
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.DOT-BIZ.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
>

--
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