Re: [ga] policy-making options - TF's and WG's comparisons inconsistant

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

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> In order to add a bit more structure to the discussion on
> policy-making, here are a couple of parameters by which
> policy-making can be "tuned", or by which different options may be
> characterized.

  "Tuned" implies indirectly that such would be a method of
funneling policy discussion in a specific direction or
a restricted variance of directions.  As such, "Tuned"
in this context is not advantageous to determining good
and useful policy that fits the needs and desires of those
that such policies will or may effect.

>  Note that "working group" and "task force" are
> mostly used interchangeably in what follows:
>
>  - Composition of working group: Same for all topics at a given time
>    (<=> names council or board does everything itself); appointed by
>    council or board (strict task force model; committees as used by
>    board); appointed by stakeholder groups (loose task force model);
>    self-selected (working group model).

  Yes and there is not viable comparison between Working Group
and Task force models in the context given or in the context of
adequately determining policy to the interested parties or stakeholders,
which ICANN and it's SO's are bound to under the MoU and
the White paper.  Hence Working Groups are far more open
and transparent with respect to participation, determination
of good and useful policy, and interactive with the stakeholders
or interested parties that any policy position or determination
be be derived by and for.

>
>
>  - Communication with public while work is going on: Listen-only plus
>    behind-the-curtain discussions with groups perceived important
>    (board; board committees); active outreach (some of the current
>    task forces; counterexample: dot-org; it may be argued that
>    dot-org registrant representation was lacking; outreach should
>    include _exchange_ of views and arguments); outreach built into
>    self-selected membership (working group model).

  Yes you have made it very clear that you prefer personally that you
are only interested in "Listen-in" Task Force models as they can
hush up any stakeholder that may have a point of set of points that
may indeed have impact of determining potential policy decisions.
That however is no open or transparent and cannot therefor
serve the best interests of the stakeholder/user community in which
the DNSO and ICANN are suppose to serve.

>
>
>    Additional options (orthogonal): Public archives of discussions;
>    dedicated comment periods.
>
>  - Interaction with the board: Through intermediate body (DNSO
>    process via names council; may or may not have power to modify
>    input from WG); directly (board committees).

  Indeed this is or has been the case with the DNSO on a number of
occasions.  However this is a contrived and skewed method and process
that is derived from the unfortunate and misguided notion that
stakeholders
in general cannot or do not possess the ability or knowledge base by
which to interact effectively, usefully, or productively.  Basically this

is broadly recognized as a "Elitist" approach, and is therefor
dramatically
flawed as such.

>
>
>    Additional options (orthogonal to that):
>
>    * Output may be considered binding/non-binding/almost-binding.

  For what or which?

>
>    * Board may interact with TF while work is going on.  Similar to
>      relationship between public and WG.

  The problem here is that with a TF, the public of which most TF's
are supposedly working on development of policy for, do not have the
proper right of participating openly and transparently with.

>
>
> I'd like to hear what you think about these options.

  Their poor to non workable for the stakeholders.

>
>
> One thing which should be kept in mind while thinking about these
> options is that different circles of stakeholders may imply the need
> for different mechanisms.  What is appropriate for
> consensus-building in the PSO concerning their policy area may be
> entirely inappropriate for the DNSO (or its successor), or for a
> ccSO.  Also, cross-SO discussions may require a process different
>  from discussions within individual SOs.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> --
> 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