Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Hello Stuart,

When discussions are limited to too few people, even well-meaning experts can 
make bad decisions... this was evident in the NC resolution on reform, and 
remains evident in the way that the ERC is handling the implementation 
aspects of the Blueprint.

When too few are assigned to a task, and when outreach is limited only to an 
immediate circle of associates, faulty decision-making can well result.  
There is an old adage:  "Our enemies come nearer the truth in the opinions 
they form of us than we do in our opinion of ourselves".  Relying on feedback 
only from those that share your own views is the surest way to become trapped 
in a web of self-deception and to deny the truth that is evident to others.

I am one who believes that the Board and Staff have become so insular that 
they no longer recognize the consensus of the community all around them.  The 
views of Management appear to be increasingly at odds with the views of a 
broad range of stakeholders, and this results in an incessant barrage of 
criticism as charges are repeatedly levied that ICANN is just not listening.  
In response to this criticism, ICANN becomes even more entrenched and more 
arrogant in the manner by which it responds to its critics.  Rather than 
attempting to satisfy all parties to the greatest measure possible, one gets 
the impression that ICANN seeks instead to p*ss them all off equally.

Action has to be taken to break this vicious cycle.

Clearly, a solution cannot be imposed top-down on the Community.  Nor can 
ICANN pretend that the Community is embracing the current reform initiative.  
It is not.  There are still far too many issues regarding representation, 
accountability, legitimacy, predictability, transparency, and 
policy-development which remain unresolved.  By now, it must be apparent to 
you that not even one group has come out in support of the ERC package thus 
far, not the Names Council, not the General Assembly, not the RIRs, not the 
gTLDs, not the ccTLDs, not the US Congress, and not the At-Large community.  

No one wants a package shoved down their throats.

To resolve this impasse, allow me to propose a possible solution  -- let 
every relevant organization appoint representatives to attend a roundtable 
negotiating session to hammer out a solution that will be binding on all 
parties, a process akin to that used in labor/management disputes.   Invite 
representatives from the Department of Commerce to observe the proceedings.  
As each group has already formulated its positions, it is now time to 
collectively craft the requisite compromises.  You give a little, they give a 
little, and eventually a solution will be reached that has the prospect of 
being palatable to most.  

Reach a working consensus in a representive microcosm.  This is, after all, a 
consensus-based organization, and we will respect the decisions reached by 
our representatives.


--
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