Re: [ga] Tucows Comments to the Implementation Committee on the Names Policy ...

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Ross, 

Allow me to commend you on your latest commentary on the Names Policy 
Development Process.  

In this document you have proposed that the work-product of a study group be 
sent directly, unfiltered, to the Board so as not to be "reduced to mush by 
the Names Council".  This leads me to pose the same question earlier asked by 
Joe Sims in a slightly different context:  why do we need a NC or for that 
matter a SO?  Why not just have the constituencies deal directly with the 
Board, since the NC under these circumstances is not offering any value added 
to the process?

Certainly if we need (below the Board level) to hammer out agreements and to 
arrive at some form of consensus, it is certainly possible to return to the 
use of the open Working Group as a justifiable alternative to the Council.  
These fully open working groups allow for unfettered discussion and involve 
members of the At-Large community as well as members of the constituencies in 
a mutual effort to arrive at a Community view.  Such groups generate 
thousands of comments on a single issue and have demonstrated their 
capability to work within strict timelines and to produce concrete results, 
unlike the lethargic and unproductive Task Forces.  Allow me to remind you 
that the Review Working Group generated 1500 comments and a comprehensive 
report in just three weeks over the course of the year-end holidays.  

I agree with you that study groups should be entitled to communicate their 
findings directly to the Board, and I share the view that the Task Force 
process has failed in large measure because some constituencies sitting on 
the Names Council have little interest in the issues that are of great 
importance to others, but I still don't see the actual need for a Council... 
what do they bring to the table?

In your view the function of the GNSO Steering Council is to ensure that 
proper consultation and vetting of the issue will take place before it is 
returned to the Board for decision.  In an open working group environment, 
all that are willing to participate and consult are at liberty to freely 
contribute to the process, and the large number of participants (it can 
easily exceed one hundred interested parties) assures that the issue is 
properly vetted.  

So, what added value does a Steering Council provide?  Why not have all 
business that requires a vote simply be conducted within the General Assembly 
on the basis of one-person/one-vote?  Surely, this is much more democratic 
and encompasses all the parties in the GNSO policy deliberating environment 
excluding none.  When a democratic unit is small, one truly has no need for 
"representative" systems, and the GNSO is certainly small in terms of its 
true membership.

An elected leader and regular plebiscites are all that are needed.  I see no 
rationale for the continued existence of a Council or for the financial 
burden that membership in such a Council imposes upon the constituencies.

I look forward to hearing your views on the subject.
--
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