[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

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

Marilyn and all,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Let me seek some clarification.
>
> Here's my understanding.
>
> The board resolution allows for profit entities to bid, as well as not for profit, as recommended by the TF/NC supported policy recommendation.  So that is a change from the TF/NC recommendation. It doesn't deny the recommendation; it expands it.

  Yes it expands it.  But not in an area that the TF had decidedly wanted or
recommended.  Hence you can say that what the BoD decided is an expansion,
or you can say that it is an invitation to bigger troubles later for various
and some obvious reasons.  None the less, the BoD Violated their own
bylaws.  As such they acted unresponsively.  THAT is troubling all by itself..

>
>
> The for profit bids don't quality for the $5m established by Verisign as a "transitional support" [my words, not theirs].  Not for profit bids do qualify. The Board resolution doesn't address that, and indeed has no power to change that reality.

  Good point here.  And this is the only saving grace, so to speak for the
potential non-profit bids.

>
>
> Criteria about reliability, performance, etc. would apply across any bid.  Nothing changed.

  Right.  And this is as it should be as well...

>
>
> The board seems to be free to consider both kinds of bids, but not bound to chose one over the other, other things being equal. A change from the TF resolution/NC recommendation, but one which provides an extended option;  not one which eliminates the TF/NC recommendation.

  Well this is as I indicated above, a mater for some conjecture, Marilyn..
On the one hand you have a BoD that seems to expand the TF's
recommendations.  On the other you have a BoD that willingly and wantingly
violated it's own bylaws as well as in part ignored the TF's recommendations.
I don't know about you, but I find that very troubling.  And I find such
action by ANY BoD, as you should know, because this is not the first time
in which the ICANN BOD has violated it's own bylaws...  An old saying
here come to mind; "If they will do it once, and get away with it, they will
do it again and again".  And it is precisely because of this that congress
is rightly deeply concerned with how the ICANN BoD is behaving
and House and Senate hearing are in the planning following the events
at Accra.  I support their concern, but also am worried as to what
will be done or be effected as a result of such hearings..

>
>
> The board is probably thus assured of getting both kinds of bids, other things being equal.

  Yes likely which is expressly not what the sprit of the TF's recommendations
were about...

>
>
> The NC's policy recommendation included a review of the RFP with the NC/one round only.

  This is NOT adequate.  The review of any and all of the participating stakeholders
on such an important event is not only wise, but necessary.  Many now do not
trust the NC or several members of the NC.  Hence the need for the DNSO
GA, and any of the Constituencies to review any RFP before it is released,
or put such a RFP's language up for a vote by any and all stakeholders.
As the latter is not currently feasible as there is no At-Large membership
any longer.  The only broader review method available is through the
DNSO GA, and the Constituencies...

>
>
> I have seen no indication that the staff wouldn't do that review. Like others, I would like for that review to take place. For my part, I promise to be civil, organized, courteous, and helpful in my comments. I am sure others on the NC will do the same. Oh, yeah. I promise to be timely. That's actually harder for me, but I consider it an essential pledge.

  Again this is fine Mailyn, but not adequate as the NC is both not trusted
at present, and that a broader group of stakeholders have no input at all
using this method of review of such an RFP.

>
>
> So, here's my view:  Credible, sustainable, workable 'competitive' bids are needed. Assurance of stability for existing registrants; while development of policy for future registrants is also needed.

  Agreed here.  But that is accomplished to a great degree by having a broader
number of stakeholders reviewing any such RFP now that the BoD has
unfortunately decided to go against their own bylaws and the TF's
recommendations.

>
>
> If we start with an agreement that successful outcomes are needed which deliver 'competitive' sustainable bids from a range of players, but that 'competitive' includes ensuring stability for existing registrants, we may get to common ground more quickly.

  Well this is somewhat clever wording here Marilyn!  >;)  Nice try, but not
quite!  LOL!  No, rather the reverse is more likely to be the best way of
insuring sustainable an competitive bids.  That being that FIRST present
and future registrants are not restricted in any way, as is current in the
.ORG name space, for registering Domain names in the .ORG
name space.  Than, second, the consideration of competitive and
of less concern, but not less importance, sustainable bid considerations
will yield the best results.

>
>
> In my mind, the staff needs to move ahead with RFP development. They, and then the respondents, have a ticking clock.

  Respondents = Whom???  What about the review of the RFP?

>
>
> Let's not let the art of the perfect outcome be the enemy of the good and productive and timely outcome...... now, I know that isn't QUITE right, so don't bother flame me JUST on that difference in wording.

  No, quite right, perfect is not reasonably attainable.  But very good is!
Mediocre at the expense of timeliness or in the name of timeliness is not
reasonable and should not be expectable.  The public deserves better than
Mediocre.

>
>
> I expect a review with the NC-- I expect to have it happen.

  I expect to have a broad stakeholder review that is reasonably timely,
and includes any and all interested parties to include DNSO GA members,
and Constituency members at a minimum...

>
>
> Was I disappointed that there was no discussion between ICANN staff and the NC about the lack of understanding in certain areas. You bet.  Was I a little unhappy to hear that they needed clarification first at the Accra meeting. Of course. BUT, responsibilty for communication is two sided.  We didn't schedule a review discussion with the staff.  I assume my share of responsibilty for this failure to suggest that there needed to a staff/NC discussion.  We, the NC, should have scheduled a dialogue. They, the Staff, should also have thought to ask us for clarification. Let's give each other a "break".

  I believe Danny Younger made this suggestion of the NC on several occasions
at least two weeks before Accra..   So yes the NC needs a break.  Several of them
sorely need replacing ASAP...

>
>
> Look, we are all new at this; the constituency reps are turning over with elections when they occur; new folks are coming into the policy making arena ... and everybody does the best they can.  An old adage.. of successful managers: assume that the employee is doing the best they can, and then, you can help them do better....

  In accordance with my management education, good managers ASK if the
employee thinks he is doing well and also employs "Management by wandering
around".  In other words a good manager KNOWS pretty much if an
employee is doing well, and than offers to get that employee the help
he/she needs.  Never assume!

> Lots of people need help to do better. WE, the NC, needed help to do better. We are volunteers. We overlooked the need to ask for and schedule a discussion with the staff. Ditto for the staff.  oops, on both parts. Now, some will spend their time flaming me about the practicality of this approach. Being more blame and flame... :-)

  Most of us know the NC needs help.  It has been offered many times.
I am offering it again here in my comments above.  First, open ears and
eyes, close mouth and pay attention.  Second, allow for open and
transparent participation in any TF or WG by andy and all interested
party or stakeholder/user without exception or restriction.  Do these
two things and lot of help can be at your aid...

>
>
> For me, I'd like to suggest:  let's move on; learn from this, and ask for an assurance that the RFC will be presented to the NC for comment and commit that we have a very short turn around.

  No it must be submitted to any and all of the stakeholders in as broad
a manner as is possible.  In other words to the DNSO GA and the
Constuencies at a minimum...  Andy yes a quick turn around can
be achieved...

>
>
> ..... That shouldn't be hard to commit to...and moves all balls forward.

Well pardon the metaphor here, but if ONLY the NC reviews the
RFP before it is put out for bid, many of the stakeholders will feel
like they just got kicked in the "Balls"!

>
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:16 AM
> To: James Love
> Cc: apisan@servidor.unam.mx; KathrynKL@aol.com; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA;
> discuss@icann-ncc.org; Amadeu@nominalia.com; jcohen@shapirocohen.com;
> vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com; General Assembly of the DNSO; Don Evans; Karen
> Rose; kathy smith; Nancy J. Victory; Conrad Burns; Kay Bailey Hutchison;
> Phil Gramm
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG
>
> Jamie and all,
>
> James Love wrote:
>
> > Milton, In fairness to the board and the ICANN staff, "the community" isn't
> > a very precise concept, and there has been a lot of evidence that for profit
> > groups have offered to finance front groups to bid for .org.
>
>   Good point.  But I think Milton's reference was understood regardless.
>
> >  I also don't
> > think the board or the ICANN staff is acting out of bad motivation, even if
> > I disagree with some things they have done.
>
>   With all due respect Jamie, I am not sure this is true.  In some recent
> instances, I along with many others are quite sure from certain
> BOD and staff members statements and actions closely following
> those statements, they have indeed acted in purposeful bad faith or
> are prone to doing so.  Some of Alejandro's comments just yesterday
> are examples, for instance.  I also cannot reasonably except that with
> all the input that they receive and have received before every single
> ICANN meeting, that they are acting out of ignorance either.
> Recent events with the .ORG and now again with .BIZ and .INFO
> come to mind as presented by Richard Hinderson and others.
>
> >  If we are focusing on the .org
> > issue, and also on the relationship between the DNSO and the board, would it
> > be useful to respond to the board's legitimate concerns, no matter how
> > awkwardly they were presented, and move this forward in a way that allows
> > the DNSO process to be respected, while allowing the board to ensure that
> > the bid is handled in a way that is creditable and fair?
>
>   I would say both yes and no here.  Yes if and only if the BoD is going to
> in advance respect any TF's recommendations as required in part by the
> Bylaws as Karl earlier pointed out on three separate occasions.  No,
> if they are not.  And if they are not, than as our members have indicated
> it is time for the DOC/NTIA to take drastic steps or for congress to
> act (Hearing as you know are being arranged).
>
> >   I think this is
> > something that can be done, if both sides are willing.   Jamie
>
>   The key is "If both sides are willing".  I believe that the stakeholders
> have demonstrably shown from the beginning of the ICANN formation
> that they are more than willing.  I cannot say the same for the Boardsquaters,
> and many of the ICANN Staff...
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> > To: <karl@cavebear.com>; <james.love@cptech.org>; <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
> > Cc: <KathrynKL@aol.com>; <mcade@att.com>; <discuss@icann-ncc.org>;
> > <froomkin@law.miami.edu>; <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>;
> > <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG
> >
> > >
> > > Let me see if I have interpreted the Board's position correctly.
> > >
> > > The Board does not believe that either itself or the community
> > > could tell the difference between a "sham" non-profit governance
> > > entity and a real one.
> > >
> > > And so, in order to eliminate the risk of for-profits gaining
> > > control of .org under a "sham," it decided to invite for-profits
> > > to apply for it openly.
> > >
> > > Is that about right?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> 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

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