Re: [idno] Re: [ICANN-EU] Questions for Jeanette Hofmann and the other candidates

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

Roberto and all IDNO'ers,

  FUnny that you should use a different E-Mali address on this list.
Is this the REAL Roberto Gaetano, or an impostor?

  But I digress...  More below some of your responses...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Joop,
>
> Just few notes, as I think that to turn this thread into a series of
> dialogues is not the best approach.
>
> You wrote:
> >The ICANN as a membership organization cannot allow its initial DNSO to
> >rule on future DNSO structure.
> >
> I beg your pardon?
> The Board "bootstrapped" DNSO (as you said yourself below), and now the DNSO
> will have to continue by itself. ICANN will have a supervisory role, and of
> course will take into account that the proposals coming from the DNSO may be
> biased by the current structure, but there's a difference between
> supervision and ingerence.

  "Ingerence"?  Any way, Roberto it should be obvious by now that
in this area of contention Joop is right and for many reasons.  It is wide
spread now that the DNSO is fraudulent and has acted under your and
Haralds insistence and stuartship in illegitimate elections, and practiced
"Selective Censorship".  This much is well documented.  As such,
Joops comment has strong merit.

>
>
> >  I also assume that they will evaluate the proposal, and the
> > >comment of the DNSO (NC), and therefore it will be more appropriate to
> > >concentrate the effort in the DNSO, rather than to seek a possible
> > >endorsement outside.
> > >
> >As you know, Roberto, I have concentrated quite a bit of effort on the DNSO
> >over the past 2 years.   The show of hands in Yokohama (67 against 3) , no
> >matter how much you would like to focus on the abstainers, showed that I
> >had them pretty well convinced.
> >Now is the  time to see if this petition will get support from the incoming
> >Board members.
>
> Obviously, I was not talking about "your" effort, but about the effort of
> others that may read this list and share your opinion.
>
> In this list there is at most *one* incoming Board member, but maybe
> hundreds of potential supporters for your idea in the DNSO. My point is that
> some of these people joined the AtLarge Membership, but may not even know
> about the General Assembly, the DNSO, and so on. If they join, we will be
> more making pressure for more representation of other parts of the Internet
> in the Name Council.
> Simple, I thought.

  It is simple from one perspective but more complex in reality Roberto.
And complex dynamics with of organizations and their relationships other
organizations and stakeholders is seemingly a concept you have yet
to grasp.  Your comment above shows this clearly.

>
>
> >How can you say that the ball isn't rolling already in the DNSO?
> >We have had a doubly seconded motion and a vote. You yourself are stating
> >on the GA list that a second round of voting in the virtual GA would be
> >superfluous.
>
> You are absolutely right, I stand corrected.
> I wrote GA, but what I meant was the NC (via the Task Force).
>
> >If the Names Council  again refuses co-operation and fudges the Special
> >Task Force and the WG on this issue, then it is indeed time for the Board
> >to intervene and approve the constituency on a provisional basis, just like
> >it did with the non-commercial DN holders constituency in Berlin.
>
> ???? the Board *did not* approve NonCom in Berlin, my attempt to mediate
> between the two opposing factions was sunk (and not by the NC, BTW).

  But the NonCom was approved none the less and the IDNO was not
and is not currently.  Why is that Roberto?  Most of us know the
answer.  Do you?

>
>
> >Do you know what would be a bottom-up process?
> >To let the General Assembly of the DNSO evolve into a large elected body
> >(say 250 members), with powers overriding those of a Names Coucil, that
> >would be made up of constituencies naturally evolved from the interests
> >that are present in the GA.
>
> Exactly.
> You say two things:
> - that a bottom-up process is exactly the opposite of invoking top-down
> intervention by the Board
> - that the General Assembly has to evolve (pray tell how can it evolve if
> not recruiting more members, for instance among the AtLarge that are
> interested in DNSO matters).

  The DNSO has been a top-down process and remains so now thru
the use of gerrymandering.

>
>
> >
> >The structure was imposed (and had to be) from the start.
> >After the CENTR proposal (and consensus) in Singapore was ignored by the
> >Board, many have indeed gone home, embittered and desillusioned.
> >Do I need to name names?
>
> May I know which of the points in http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html
> was ignored?
> The people that went home, quitting the process, were some of the supporters
> of the Paris Draft. Funnily enough, though, only one of the participants in
> the Paris meeting that originated the draft left the process. All the
> others, including myself, are still trying to work for a better DNSO (from
> the inside, without adult supervision).

  You NEED regular and consistent adult supervision.  That much is
quite clear.  Many have stayed around the DNSO in order to insure
that you get that supervision and to monitor the DNSO's behavior
as a SO within the ICANN structure, as flawed as it now appears
to be.

>
>
> >In the GA, it's those who are still unrepresented on the NC who are
> >spending their precious time.
> >And their money, to attend ICANN meetings. For what, do you think?
>
> For what I said above: work for a better DNSO (from the inside, without
> adult supervision).
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idno-discuss mailing list
> Idno-discuss@idno.org
> http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208