<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Concerns & Petition
Philip,
I have a number of concerns regarding the UDRP Task Force that I would like
to discuss with you:
1. The lack of a public comment period --
Our Bylaws state: "Any reports or recommendations presented to the NC by
such bodies shall be posted on a web site accessible by the public for public
review and comment; absent clear justification, which shall be publicly
stated at the time of any action, the NC shall not act on any report or
recommendation until a reasonable time for public comment has passed and the
NC has reviewed and evaluated all public comments received. The NC is
responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been heard and
considered prior to a decision by the NC."
Public comment is more than a response to a questionnaire. If the Task Force
will be drafting recommendations, then a public comment period is needed to
respond to those recommendations. I see no indication of that in the current
timeline posted at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
2. The lack of a constituency comment period --
Our Bylaws state: "Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from
such a body, the NC may accept the report or recommendation for submission to
the Constituencies for comment and consultation, or return the report or
recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work."
There does not appear to be a procedure that allows for the constituencies to
formally comment on the recommendations cited in this timeline either (which
would be required prior to a vote: "After the report or recommendation is
submitted to the Constituencies and the comment period for the Constituencies
has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments to determine whether there is
a basis for a consensus recommendation to the Board."
3. The lack of a GA "body" --
Our Bylaws state that the "substantive work of the DNSO" is to be carried out
by "research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA
". A single GA representative is neither a committee, nor a group, nor a
body of the GA. Our Bylaws envisioned a structure whereby the "work" gets
handled by the members of the GA, with "each recognized Constituency...
invited to participate in each of such bodies." Only the "management" of
such groups is the responsibility of the NC.
Your particular approach is denying the General Assembly its full right to
participate in the consensus-building process as envisioned by the Bylaws.
There is a reason why we have had working groups drawn from the General
Assembly membership to tackle each of the major issues that faced us in the
past... a working group is the best possible bottoms-up mechanism to discover
consensus, and yet the NC has decided to not establish a UDRP working group
(although decisions reached by this Task Force may well impact many
generations to come). This decision must be revisited. Many of us still
recall the aberrant "conclusions" reached by the last Names Council Task
Force (Review), and we do not seek to see that failure repeated again... a
working group is essential on an issue of this importance to counterbalance
the top-down Task Force approach.
4. The lack of consensus mechanisms --
A Task Force alone cannot meet the requirements of consensus. The Terms of
Reference for this group indicate that "to the extent no consensus can be
reasonably reached on an item, majority vote shall rule". Since when is a
simple majority considered to be consensus in the ICANN process? Shall ten
members of this Task Force decide for all the rest of us, especially when
eleven of these participants may not even be members of the DNSO? Consensus
is more than a majority vote... it documents the extent of agreement and
disagreement among impacted groups, documents the outreach process used to
seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are
likely to be impacted, and documents the nature and intensity of reasoned
support and opposition to the proposed policy. -- How do you expect a single
questionnaire to accomplish all of the above?
5. The lack of open processes --
The General Assembly has a large number of members with expertise in the UDRP
topic and qualified to participate in such discussions; we even have our own
UDRP mailing list devoted to this subject. It is not appropriate that these
interested members be denied the opportunity to formally participate. Such a
decision would run counter to the principles of ICANN which call for fair and
open processes. A process is not open if it is closed to the bulk of our
membership. This issue requires nothing less than a full working group, and
Working Group D has already established all the necessary policies and
procedures to satisfy the requirements of the Council.
6. Petition --
Further, whereas the Names Council has previously voted to accept the
recommendations of Working Group D, and whereas such recommendations allow
for any member of the GA to petition the NC for the formation of a working
group, I am now formally presenting you and the Names Council with this
petition to create a UDRP working group to act in conjunction with the UDRP
Task Force.
The General Assembly appreciates being asked to submit a candidate to the NC
UDRP Task Force, but any action which contemplates revisions to the UDRP must
involve a full General Assembly working group as well.
Best regards,
Danny Younger
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|