Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments
On 19:46 09/09/02, Karl Auerbach said:
>As I read this discussion, it seems to me that it is between those who are
>willing to accept a subordinate and nearly voiceless status and those who
I am intersted in knowing what is happening right now about ccTLDs. Any
notion about the ccSO ERC proposition? My understanding is that the ccTLD
legitimacy is from their local communities and not from Memo#1 threat: that
puts them into direct conflict with Joe Sims, as the GA. Users from
everywhere in the world should also share into the ccSO: a new GA? I guess not:
ICANN consensus over @large is by Esther and Denise and a few @large
entrapped to endorse it.
ICANN consensus over ccTLDs will be by a second level Staff member and a
few ccTLD and experts entrapped to endorse it.
ICANN consensus over GA will be by NC and a few ...
ICANN consensus over new TLDs
Obviously this works as long as Joe Sims may say "the consensus has been
decided by the BoD in Bucharest". ie as long as he manages ContactNet. BTW
is anyone still interested in the Internet? The coming mnemonic
recomposition no one will control (from the iDNs complete mess if as
currently proposed) will be interesting.
>Under the current regime and under the "reform" plan(s), the GA is a toy
>body that is allowed to exist as a kind of placebo for what, in ICANNland
>are "the lower classes", those who use the net (and who ultimately pay the
>costs.) The so-called "reform" further reduces the GA. Personally, I
>believe that the converse ought to be the path - that the names council
>should be abolished and replaced by a new entity that consists only of
>people elected by the GA.
>I object most strenuously to the "stakeholder" notion that is infused
>throughout ICANN now and proposed that certain people, merely by virtue of
>their affiliation with groups or concepts such as intellectual property or
>DNS registries, more worthy than you or I, to sit on those bodies, such as
>the names council - and in less than two months, on the board - that
>actually have powers to make decisions about Internet policies.
>As for "moderated" - we have seen ICANN's notion of "moderation", a system
>in which communications is so crabbed and limited that the "result" is not
>a group position hammered out and agreed upon by counted votes, but
>instead is a mishmosh of opinions that is so unfocused that NC or "staff"
>can do a bit of exgesis to justify whatever it wanted to do in the first
>ICANN's "moderation" as censorship is deep seated - ICANN ignored the
>work of the IFWP, ICANN labeled as "arrogant" and "juvenile" those who
>petitioned for a delay in the UDRP that was railroaded through the
>proto-incompletely formed DNSO, and ICANN's "staff" has "moderated" me by
>silently refusing to publish any of my own writings on ICANN's web site,
>despite the routine posting of similar materials by other directors and
>affiliates. How often has the board of directors (or staff) "moderated"
>the DNSO by ignoring its decisions - such as about WLS or .org?
>The GA does need process - I have long been an advocate of an form of
>Roberts rules modified for electronic contexts - but if the GA needs
>anything, it is not "moderation". Quite the contrary, it needs to as a
>group make a clear resolution, and vote on that resolution, about what it
>sees as its role.
>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
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 04/09/02