[ga] Re: Observations from the Peanut Gallery
Sotiris has asked for a response regarding the necessary margin of victory
needed to pass the motion put forth by Patrick Corliss. Our rules state:
"In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA, the
number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least 2/3 of
cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of 20% of the
registered voters or 100 votes."
As the motion calls for amending the current rules, this is not a matter over
which the Chair may declare "rough consensus"; a vote is required if we are
going to have our existing rules changed.
If enough members indicate through their discussion that such a change should
be considered, then the Chair has reasonable cause to accept the motion as a
ballot question. This does not imply either agreement or disagreement with
the motion; it is simply a decision to let the Assembly, after sufficient
discussion, come to their own conclusion through the voting process.
I agree with Sotiris' observation that, "As it stands, there are obviously
disruptive influences which would impede the achievement of work in this
assembly." A good example of such diversionary efforts may be noted in a
post to our list today from a Names Council member that represents the
Registrars constituency. In his comments, Mr. Stubbs noted that he would
like to see substantive movement on matters such as, for example,
Those of us that paid attention to the discussions of the Board in Stockholm
noted that the ICANN Board explicitly referred the matter of an individuals'
constituency to the Names Council for resolution. I have yet to see Mr.
Stubbs acting to push this issue through the Council. As yet, the Names
Council Review Task Force has not published their Terms of Reference, has not
established an archived mailing list, and has not begun its work on the
promised "web-based forum". Attempting to shift discussion on this topic
once more to the GA, after we already voted by a margin in excess of 80% to
support the creation of such a constituency, is purely diversionary, and
serves to do no more than to attempt to distract us from the fact that the
Council has been sitting on this topic since March, and has done nothing.
Mr. Stubbs has indicated that unless the GA stops "talking to hear
themselves", he will try to find other venues to work within on issues like
those he has advocated and supported here... excellent idea. He may wish to
begin by using the Names Council as the appropriate venue to pave the way for
an individuals' constituency. He may also wish to prod the registrars to
deal with formulating policies regarding Code of Conduct, Best Practices,
Warehousing, Speculation, Transfers, Expired Domains, etc.
Consider the following excerpt from the Core Secretariat to the registrars
- Verisign uses loopholes in the transfer rule it has written itself
in its registry role
- The auto-nack policy hurts precisely those registrars who abide by the
prior documentation rule
- Verisign causes large numbers of domains to expire by rejecting
transfers, thereafter refuses to transfer invoking "non paid" status
- Many transfers are rejected despite confirmation, or no confirmation
request is sent
- Most of the domain names involved are legacy registrations
- A number of facts leave little credibility to a "customer protection"
-- Verisign's time to confirm is unreasonably short
-- Verisign's confirmation method unreasonably cumbersome
-- Verisign's confirmation requests are difficult to understand,
difficult to tell from spam
-- Verisign generates additional revenue with the auto-nack policy
-- Verisign has not caused less erroneous transfers than other registrars
in proportion to the number of transferring customers
- Verisign clearly has a dominant market position
There are issues in front of us that the registrars community should be
bringing to the Council. Even Louis Touton has written to the Council
suggesting "the DNSO may wish to begin consideration of possible development
of a policy for handling expiring names."
And yet a Names Council representative berates the GA for not attending to
substantive matters. At least we are discussing "Bandwidth and Session
Limits to be Deployed within the SRS" to a degree far greater than it has
been discussed by the registrars or by the Council. At least we have raised
the issue of expired domains, a Registrants' Bill of Rights, etc. What has
the Council done? The GA has been developing questions to pose to the Board
candidates; the Council can't even decide on a date for their own vote. The
GA has noted the lack of Secretariat resources which hamper our ability to
vote -- a substantive issue. The GA has already voted to request that the
ICANN Board fund the DNSO; the Council merely decided to deny voting rights
to constituencies that couldn't pay. Members of the GA have prepared a BEST
PRACTICES document to improve the efficiency of our organization, and members
of this Assembly (myself included) have posted requests to the NC Intake
Committee dealing with substantive matters... when was the last time that an
NC member put a new item on the NC agenda through the Intake Committee?
At least we work on a daily basis... perhaps the Council and its
representatives could consider convening more often so that the DNSO actually
has a chance to get some meaningful work accomplished. Complaints about our
lack of progress at a time when there has been almost no progress on multiple
Council initiatives is disingenuous and diversionary. If we need the time to
fully debate a proposed motion on our own rules, and even if it takes 500
posts to do so, then we will have our comments noted -- if this annoys an NC
member, too bad... The GA is making forward progress. We have already
started nominating candidates for the ICANN Board position, and we will be
happy to sponsor a candidates debate in Montevideo. Soon we will have
another elected representative to a Council task force, and doubtless we will
bring bring other issues to the attention of the Council (as it appears that
the registrar constituency seems to be reluctant to do so).
I am proud of the efforts of the membership, and consider remarks to the
contrary by Council members to be just another diversion. Keep in mind that
the ALSC will soon be putting forth restructuring recommendations... a
"dysfunctional" Council will probably be the first institution to fall into
the recycling bin. The GA is on track. Keep up the good work.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html