<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] NC BS
On 2002-05-15 18:56:36 -0400, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>We didn't enough about this issue in the GA discussion, but you
>might draft a comment about what you think the GA should b e if
>you don't like this formulation and forward it via the chair/alt.
>chair.
The current recommendations 18, 19, 24, and 25, taken together,
certainly do not provide adequate participation for the public and,
in particular, for individual users' and consumers' interests in a
DNSO process using them as a blueprint.
- Recommendation 18 only lists the existing DNSO constituencies. I
believe that it would be wise if the DNSO would include a
placeholder for a consumers' interests constituency in this
section. I actually believe that such a constituency, in which
_strong_ advocacy groups should be represented, is crucial for
balanced policy-making: It could add the necessary political
weight to consumsers' interests. Having these interests
represented (in policy-making, as opposed to the board level!) by
either an at-large membership or an individual domain name
holders' constituency would most likely carray significantly less
weight.
- Recommendation 19 lacks a clear procedure for adding new
stakeholders. It is an extremely bad idea to essentially put the
participation of new constituencies in the existing
constituencies' hands. Any such addition would affect the
current balance of powers, and could be perceived as a risk for
constituencies' existing influence.
For this reason alone, it seems unlikely that new constituencies
would _ever_ be added without considerable outside pressure.
(Note that, for this reason, it's also highly unrealistic to
believe that the NC could follow my above remark concerning
recommendation 18.)
If you continue this line of thought, the next thing to ask for
is an artificial balance of user and supplier interests in the
council, independently of the number of participating
constituencies, by weighting votes accordingly. One way of
implementing this is the gTLD constituencies' recommendation to
have separate policy development bodies.
- Recommendation 24 is, quite frankly, unrealistic: Verifying the
GA's members' constituency membership is something which has
already failed in the past.
Actually, while the discussions about the currently-running vote
were going on, Alexander and I considered the idea of verifying
the eligibility of members of the voting registry, in response to
James' outside campaigning. When we asked Roberto and Harlad how
this was applied in the past, we learned that these rules have
never been enforced - because some constituencies apparently have
not been able to either confirm or deny membership of individuals.
Also, the example of the non-commercial constituency's discuss
mailing list demonstrates that (sort of) reasonable and
intelligent discussions are certainly possible on mailing lists
with public participation. (As are allegations of slander, libel,
and the like - but that's most likely unavoidable around ICANN.)
- Recommendation 25 describes a public consultation period as "the
channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the
stakeholders/constituency scheme participate in policy-making". I
believe that this is an extremely poor suggestion for public
participation: During such public consultation periods there will
typically be no actual dialogue between the public and task force
members, which severly limits the impact such comments can have
on evolving policy. Also, since public consultation is to be
done on "proposed new policy," this consultation period will
occur _after_ any compromises have been carefully worked out
between constituencies. It's not too realistic that any deals
made would be re-opened just on the basis of public comment - in
particular when there is no or little time between the receipt of
public comments and the publication of a task force's final
report.
All a public consultation process could realistically do would be
to make visible the most obvious abuses of policy-making process.
But these would be visible anyways. Thus, it's unlinkely that
such public comment periods would actually improve the policy
which evolves.
Comments?
Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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
>>>
|