Re: [ga] Reply to Eric

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

Danny and all remaining assembly members,

Danny Younger wrote:

> Dear Eric,
>
> Please accept my apologies in advance for what will be a lengthy
> dissertation in response to your numerous posts to the GA list.  Let me
> begin by quoting the adage, "Rome wasn't built in a day".

  Nice quote, but doesn't apply unfortunately Danny.  >;)  This is not
Rome, nor is it Roman times either.  This is the Internet, and the 21st
century.  As such, much more productivity from Roman days
is routinely achieved on a daily basis...

>  It has not even
> been two weeks since the election rankings were posted, yet you appear to be
> rankled by the fact that we have still not completely overhauled the rules
> and procedures that guide the General Assembly.

  No, I think Eric amongst a number of us wonder when such a process will
start, how it will be conducted, who will have input to this process
determination,
and will it be legitimate before other DNSO business is conducted?

>
>
> You and I have had the benefit of participating in the Review Working Group.
> I recall an observation by Roger Cochetti that is particularly apt; he
> stated:  "Instead, the NC appears to have been more focused on procedures,
> administrative practices, and matters that are more related to its own
> process than to substantive matters."  The same comment might equally come
> to be made about the GA should we choose to travel down this path.

  Well given Roger's point of view of course no one should be surprised
at his comment.  None the less such a comment, whatever it's intention,
should be taken with a grain of salt, as without good process, no good
substance can be obtained or produced.  You work for Register.com,
do you not?  And doesn't Register .com have a process for registering
domain names amongst other things dealing with Domain Names?
And without that process, would there not likely be chaos in the
registration of Domain Names?   I hope my point is now well
taken!!

>
>
> I have chosen to focus my attention upon domain name policy issues.  This
> is, after all, why we are all here.

  Agreed it is.  However without a good process by which that can
be done, nothing of valuable substance and/or stakeholder approval
can be achieved.  Process first, Danny, than substance....

>  I will outline my understanding of our
> mission for the benefit of any newcomers to the ICANN process:
>
> The GA is one of two bodies within an organization (the DNSO) that has been
> established to provide consensus-based domain name policy guidance to the
> ICANN Board.
>
> While the Names Council of the DNSO is organized as a collection of
> constituencies, the GA is organized as a collection of individuals (open to
> all participants who have a knowledge of and an interest in issues
> pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and
> who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the
> DNSO, including work item proposal and development, discussion of work
> items, draft document preparation, and participation in research and
> drafting committees and working groups).

  Unfortunately while SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP is in vogue with the
DNSO GA, such a situation that you suggest does not and cannot exist.

>
>
> As such, the GA is an open forum that is designed to ultimately generate
> substantive work-product (documents for consideration by the Board), that
> stem from a consensus-based decision-making process.

  Define specifically what a "consensus-based decision-making process" is
Danny...

>
>
> These documents are central to any decision by the Board to adopt a new
> policy as a "consensus policy"; thus, the work of the GA is critically
> important.

  Indeed the work of the GA is very important or should be.  However
as we have seen the ICANN BoD does not view it as such.  For example
the decision on the "New Deal" Verisign/NSI contract decision by the
ICANN BoD...

>
>
> "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus among Internet
> stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1) the
> adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a recommendation
> that the policy should be adopted,
> by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting
> Organization to which the matter is delegated, and (3) a written report and
> supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to the
> Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the
> extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents
> the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the
> views of groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the
> nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed
> policy.

  Exactly right Danny!  However this is NOT decidedly what the ICANN BoD
is doing is it?  Again the Verisign "Deal" comes to mind of late as an
example...
The UDRP is another example...  I could go on and on, but I think you get
the drift here....

>
>
> It is the membership of the GA that provides the research and commentary
> behind this written report and supporting materials.

  Yes.  So what happened to the WG-Review Report?  Or was that
just a practice run perhaps?

>
>
> A domain name consensus policy is implemented by way of language written
> into contracts with accredited registrars and registries.  This is the only
> true "power" that ICANN has.  An example of a future domain name policy
> might be a decision taken to require registrars
> to establish a 30-day grace period for expired domain names (there is no
> single industry standard at the moment), and all such policies must
> establish the need for such a "uniform" policy to exist (as opposed to
> merely allowing for market dynamics to determine that which is in the best
> interest of the consumer).

  And doesn't the "Consumer" (Your word, not mine) have a say in what
these policies can, and will be?

>
>
> As the DNSO is not charged with the responsibility of preparing contract
> language (this is the function of the ICANN staff), the DNSO must work in
> advance of contract creation to lay the groundwork for the policy that the
> Board may eventually adopt.

  Hummmm?  Well if the DNSO GA cannot at least suggest and recommend
language changes in any ICANN Contract dealing with Domain Names,
Registrars, and/or Registries, than the DNSO GA really has no
substantive and effecting purpose...  The devil Danny, is in the details...

>
>
> This obligation to work well in advance forces the GA membership to listen
> to the concerns of the public, to determine whether there exists a need for
> a uniform policy, and requires the GA membership to not only engage in
> outreach to potentially impacted parties, but also to fully consider,
> evaluate and document the extent of opposition and support for any proposed
> future policy.

  Yes and the DNSO is also charged with making recommendations of
specific policy as well...

>
>
> It was the recognition of this need to work well in advance that prompted me
> to exercise my rights under the ByLaws to petition the NC to consider a
> policy with respect to the upcoming prospect of collisions in namespace.
> Should the NC agree to consider this matter, the GA will be called upon to
> participate in some fashion.  I have recommended to the NC Chair the
> establishment of a working group (which by tradition is provided with its
> own mailing list).

  Good, and well done!

>
>
> Understanding that the GA will need to focus on domain name policy matters
> in a more efficient manner, I have written to both the DNSO Secretariat and
> to the NC Chair requesting assistance in the establishment of topical
> mailing lists for the open committees that the GA will soon come to
> establish.

  Topical???  Please elaborate...

>
>
> The creation of additional mailing lists will hopefully result in a
> task-oriented focus that will tend to limit the amount of acrimony that the
> GA list has had to endure.  I am sure that you will agree that there were
> very few incidents of "flaming" on the Review WG list (as the demand to get
> the job done within a limited time frame clearly took precedence).
>
> It is now time to determine our agenda for the immediate future.  Several
> good suggestions have been made so far with regard to the types of issues we
> may first wish to confront.  We may decide to work in parallel to the NC and
> create lists for WHOIS/Privacy, UDRP, evaluating the new TLD rollout,
> evaluating the Multilingual domain name test-bed operations, ongoing DNSO
> Review.  We may instead decide to forge our own path and look at domain name
> pre-registration activities, allegations of domain name hoarding, etc.  The
> choice is ours to make.

 Yes, OURS to make indeed!

>
>
> Eric, within the Review WG your contributions were highly valued.  You chose
> a topic area and provided all of us with a new understanding and
> appreciation of the issues involved.  I am similarly looking forward to your
> involvement in the GA as we move ahead to tackle some difficult areas.
> Within the Review WG, rules were almost non-existent, yet we managed to get
> the job done, on time, and in a thorough manner (and the Board responded to
> our effort).
>
> I would ask you to set aside your personal differences with myself and
> Patrick, and to join us in making the GA an effective instrument for change.
> You have strength of character, drive, initiative, and we would all count
> ourselves fortunate to have your support.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html