Re: [ga] Re: Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

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

Ross and all assembly members,

  Simply put, I think the consensus that Danny is talking about
it the consensus of the registrants, instead of the Registrars.
Perhaps that is where the disconnect resides?

  As far as I know the survey to which I believe you are referring
is not known to any of our members, domain name holders all,
including myself.  So I will ask again; Where is this survey?
Whom has input as to what questions are ask on this survey?

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Danny,
>
> While your rhetoric and misplaced theories may excite some, my actual
> statements are far less impressive.
>
> "The work of this task force thsus far has focused on points number 1
> through
> 5 in the Final Terms of Reference document...
>
> At this point I would like to propose that we turn our attention to point #6
> "...develop recommendations to the Names Council for guidance to the ICANN
> Board of Directors concerning any amendment of existing contractual
> agreements, where such changes are needed to correct any identified clauses
> which require policy guidance or clarification , should the Names Council
> determine that consensus support for said recommendations exists, as
> specified in section 2.d of the ICANN bylaws." pending the receipt of the
> feedback required by point #4.
>
> I firmly believe that there will be no surprises from the registrants that
> would derail any efforts put towards achieving the goals of point #6. At
> worst, I expect that we may have to undertake minor modifcations pending
> receipt of this feedback, but that this will largely be mitigated by the
> current user groups that are participating in this task force. The needs of
> the various user stakeholders are largely complementary as it relates to
> transfers. Of course, the Registrar Constituency cannot pretend to speak on
> behalf of this community, we do have excellent exposure to their interests,
> needs and challenges through our economic dealings with them. In the year
> that I have been working this issue, I have not seen any dissonance with the
> goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants."[1]
>
> Further, while you state elsewhere that "we don't get it", the registrar
> constituency *has* achieved constituency on the best practices document that
> I have tabled. The very fact that this document was accepted by all but two
> registrar members (one abstaining, one against - the one that abstained
> helped me draft this document) is perfect evidence of this consensus. If
> this isn't a reasonable demonstration of consensus then perhaps I don't get
> it.
>
> To the rest, I can only offer that perhaps you gain a better understanding
> of the differences between work planning, tabled propositions and final
> recommendations. Each of which are very specifically and appropriately dealt
> with in my proposal to the TF.
>
> -rwr
>
> [1] For those of you that wish to inform yourselves, the complete post can
> be found at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Cc: <ross@tucows.com>; <mcade@att.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:54 PM
> Subject: Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF
>
> > According to the archives of the Business Constituency, Ross Rader made a
> > presentation to the BC on the issue of Transfers in Marina del Rey and
> "The
> > BC expressed support for the proposed solution to this problem and
> directed
> > its representative to the Names Council transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) to
> > advocate this view."
> > http://www.bizconst.org/archive/BCLA11-01.doc
> >
> > That Marilyn pretends to be a neutral Chair on this TF while being
> directed
> > to advocate a particular solution comes as no surprise to anyone, nor were
> we
> > surprised when Ross was the first to nominate Marilyn as Chair for the
> > Transfers TF.  But now Ross, who tells us in the Heathrow Declaration that
> > "Consensus-based decision-making may not always be appropriate where
> > commercial interests conflict," declares that "Unless there is an
> alternate
> > proposal that provides the depth, roots in consensus and clarity that the
> > Registrar position has, it is our preference that we move to closure and
> > recommendation back to the NC before April 30th, 2002."
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html
> >
> > According to Ross, we can quickly move past the need to hear from
> registrants
> > because, "In the year that I have been working this issue, I have not seen
> > any dissonance with the goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants."
> >
> > What we are looking at is an attempt to railroad process, and to impose a
> > solution that these two parties have mutually pre-agreed upon.
> >
> > There has been no respect for the consensus process within this TF since
> the
> > day that it was formed.  The views of potentially impacted parties have
> not
> > been solicited, registrants are not represented in the TF, and absolutely
> no
> > outreach has been conducted.  Discussion among list members has been at a
> > bare minimum, and Ross's portrayal of the September Inter-Registrar
> Transfers
> > Document as a product of consensus among the registrars is a contention
> > subject to dispute.
> >
> > So that there be no ambiguity, I call on the Chair of this TF to clearly
> > state in writing for the benefit of her TF membership exactly what the
> > requirements are for consensus within the ICANN process, and to detail
> > exactly how her TF will proceed to honor such requirements.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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