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

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Danny this is far too charitable!
Eric

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> 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@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

--
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