Re: RE: [council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisignagreements

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Council members:
Because my dreadful email client does not put ">" characters in front of your comments, I will reply in ALL CAPS. Please don't interpret it as shouting.

>>> "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com> 04/04/01 18:20 PM >>>

First, I do not think that the Council ever made "...it clear that the Internet community does not support Option B."  

MM: DOES A REPUDIATION OF THE OPTION BY A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY STRIKE YOU AS SUPPORT FOR OPTION B? 

SINCE WHEN CAN VOTING DOWN AN OPTION BY A COMFORTABLE MAJORITY BE INTERPRETED AS SUPPORT FOR IT? 

DID YOU FORGET ABOUT THE VOTES ON OTHER SECTIONS, WHICH CALLED FOR MODIFICATIONS IN OPTION B WITH ONLY ONE OR TWO VOTES DISSENTING? DID THAT INDICATE SUPPORT FOR OPTION B, TOO?

Later you assert that "...there was no adequate consultation process..." Reasonable people can disagree over how much consultation is "adequate",
however we should not ignore the quite substantial consultations that openly took place:

ROGER, YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL WHAT SHE MEANS BY "NO ADEQUATE CONSULTATION." WE WERE PRESENTED WITH A FAIT ACCOMPLI, A PRIVATE DEAL STRUCK BETWEEN YOU AND STAFF. ADEQUATE CONSULTATION WOULD HAVE ALLOWED DNSO INPUT INTO THE POLICY DECISIONS _BEFORE_ A DEAL WAS MADE.

[Long snip of rhetorical barrage] Whatever you feel was missing in the consultative process that made it inadequate should be specified so that the rest of us can decide whether we agree or do not agree with what you would feel is necessary to have made this consultation "adequate".  

SIMPLE: DON'T MAKE POLICY DECISIONS BEFORE THE DNSO HAS TAKEN A POSITION ON THEM. I DIDN'T DRAFT ICANN'S ARTICLE VI (b), WHICH GIVES SO'S "PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPING AND RECOMMENDING POLICIES" I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THEM. 

Finally, on your three proposals, we all want to strengthen the Council's credibility, but I doubt that vague complaints about a matter that ICANN
management has already asserted is not a matter of policy will do much to do so. 

WOULDN'T IT BE MORE CONSTRUCTIVE FOR ICANN MANAGEMENT TO TRY TO COME TO SOME COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF THE DNSO, RATHER THAN TWISTING DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD "POLICY" BEYOND RECOGNITION WHEN IT SUITS THEIR CONVENIENCE?