RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Danny,

I certainly agree with your general theme even if I don't agree with
everything you say.  In my opinion, the group is recommending a perpetuation
of a current failure, just as you say.  Although I am not neccessarily
opposed to the task force concept, I personally think the current
implementation of it is a joke.  But it does make for a good power trip for
certain parties so I fully understand why they like it and want to
perpetuate it.

With regard to gTLD Constituency discussion of issues, speaking just as a
member, I can assure you that we regularly discuss issues before our
representatives take positions for the constituency.  As you have probably
noticed, we are one of the few constituencies that is willing to go against
the flow on task forces and the NC.  That is not because our representatives
are doing their own thing but because they have direction from the
constituency as a whole, in most cases unanimous.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:45 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> 
> 
> The Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group has proposed 
> institutionalizing an abysmal failure -- the Task Force 
> Concept.  These task 
> forces will continue to produce poor policy guidance, only 
> now they will do 
> so even faster. 
> 
> We will continue to receive pompous self-serving constituency 
> reports from 
> groups like the BC that will state "The BC is in large part 
> in agreement 
> with… or, the BC believes… or, the BC supports…" with absolutely no 
> documentation of BC discussions on the issue.  This 
> constituency, like 
> several others, including the gTLDs and the ISPs, refuse to 
> maintain a 
> publicly archived discussion list.   They do not believe in 
> abiding by the 
> ICANN Bylaws on transparency "to the maximum extent 
> feasible".  They believe 
> that they can continue to flaunt the Bylaws even while 
> criticizing the Board 
> for its failure to conduct fully open and transparent Board meetings.
> 
> Other constituencies, such as the NCDNHC and the IPC, will 
> have their Council 
> members tender remarks such as "It is the position of…" even 
> when there is 
> absolutely no record of any dialogue on their lists relative 
> to the topic at 
> hand.  Neither will they post the minutes of their 
> teleconferences, nor the 
> record of any discussion held by their excom or adcom --  in 
> short, we will 
> continue to see nothing but more of the same, only now at an 
> expedited pace.
> 
> The truth of the matter is that, with rare exceptions (such 
> as within the 
> Registrar Constituency), discussion is not happening at the 
> constituency 
> level.  And frankly, of what value is a constituency if its 
> members don't 
> participate?  An organization sends in its membership dues, 
> and then we don't 
> hear from them until they decide to take a junket to an ICANN 
> meeting at some 
> interesting venue, and even then these folks have little to 
> contribute since 
> they haven't kept up with the day-to-day activities of the 
> organization.  
> Sure, it adds to the prestige of the organization to state on 
> their website 
> that they are member of such-and-such an ICANN constituency, 
> but of what 
> value is it to us?  
> 
> How many times have we heard the BC extol the virtues of one 
> their members, 
> the International Chamber of Commerce, that "outreaches to 
> over 1.5 million 
> companies worldwide"?  Yet never once have we heard the 
> opinions of this 
> group on anything.  No position papers have ever been 
> submitted, there is no 
> record of any commentary, and no indication that this group 
> does anything 
> other than remit a membership payment to the BC.
> 
> Other constituencies that are more transparent with a 
> membership roster that 
> includes almost two hundred organizations, such as the 
> NCDNHC, are equally 
> perpetrating a fraud.  They have almost no "paying members", 
> and according to 
> the recently published ledger of DNSO Contributions, two out 
> of three of 
> their current Council representatives haven't even made a 
> membership payment 
> on behalf of their own organizations.  By what right do they 
> thereby claim to 
> be a constituency member, or for that matter to be able to 
> "represent" the 
> constituency if they are not even a member in good standing?
> 
> Only 23 organizations out of 187 in the NCDNHC made a 
> membership payment 
> according to the ledger.  They don't pay, and most don't 
> participate in any 
> dialogue at the constituency level, and when they do it's 
> never on topics 
> that directly deal with DNSO policy issues.  When was the 
> last time you saw 
> any NCDNHC members discuss WLS, or Transfers, or Deletes, or 
> IDN on their 
> discussion list?  
> 
> Discussion of policy issues is in fact happening not at the 
> constituency 
> level, but rather at a different locale, the DNSO General 
> Assembly.  Further, 
> participants in these discussions are almost never members of 
> any given 
> constituency, and yet these interested and involved members 
> of the community 
> are the ones being excluded from direct and equal 
> participation in the Names 
> Policy Development Process.  
> 
> This is not Reform.  This is again denying representation to 
> the broader 
> At-Large community in favor of entrenched special interest groups.  
> 
> If these groups would actually participate in the task force 
> process, then 
> there might be some basis for proposing modifications to the 
> current system.  
> But we have seen the record of their involvement.  Just look 
> at the transfers 
> task force, or the IDN task force as examples that highlight the 
> non-participation of constituency conscripts.  These are 
> folks that don't 
> want to be there, that won't participate in any meaningful 
> fashion, and that 
> are stuck on these TFs because their constituency had to 
> assign somebody to 
> be there.
> 
> A task force of six members, when half won't participate, is 
> next to useless. 
>  When the task force is expanded to two members per 
> constituency, and the 
> constituencies still fail to participate (as has already been 
> noted), this is 
> a sign that the entire process is defective, and no amount of 
> tinkering will 
> fix the situation when some constituencies just don't want to 
> participate.  
> In many cases, several of these constituencies just don't 
> have an actual 
> membership that is willing to do anything more than show up 
> at an occasional 
> ICANN meeting.  Why do you think that the ISPs always have 
> the same members 
> on every single task force?  It's probably because their 
> constituency is as 
> much of a sham as is the BC constituency - they don't have an 
> involved 
> membership, only a few representatives that are stuck on every single 
> committee since no one else is willing to do the job.
> 
> We have all seen what happens to public comments submitted to 
> task forces.  
> We have sufficient proof that they are not even being read.  
> The opinions of 
> the public are of no consequence to those that represent 
> special interest 
> groups.  One way or another, only their views will prevail in 
> this system as 
> there is no one to advocate for the public view in this 
> process.  Without an 
> advocate or representative, the comments of the public will 
> continue to 
> wither on the vine, and ICANN will blissfully continue to 
> fail to understand 
> why the public is so incensed.  
> 
> Participation means nothing if there is no representation.  
> The views of the 
> broader community will continue to be ignored as special 
> interest groups will 
> continue to apply their own unique SPIN on the public voice.
> 
> This Task Force process is as illegitimate as the Reform 
> itself and it is not 
> surprising that Hans Kraaijenbrink and Joe Sims participated in the 
> development of this perversion.
> 
> There was a time when we believed in the utility of the Open 
> Working Group, 
> the collaboration of the At-Large Community with the 
> constituencies in a 
> mutual effort to arrive at a consensus-based solution.  This 
> has now been 
> replaced with a system that excludes the At-Large, excludes 
> the General 
> Assembly, and which continues to advantage incumbent 
> interests at the expense 
> of all those that are not properly represented in the ICANN process.  
> 
> This plan will, of course, be adopted by the Board, because 
> they have already 
> spoon-fed their opinions to the assistance group.  It's just 
> another sign of 
> how perverse this organization has become.  The bottom-up is 
> not to be 
> trusted to draft their own recommendations… they need to be 
> coached by the 
> ICANN Board and its outside Counsel.
> 
> This is no more than a charade being played out to entertain 
> the DoC.  I 
> can't wait to hear Mary Hewitt's comments on how wonderful it 
> is that ICANN's 
> Blueprint is being supported by so many that have come forth with 
> implementation suggestions.
> 
> Looks like its time to write to the DoC yet again.
> 
> --
> 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