Re: [ga] Consensus Policy Process

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jeff and all assembly members,

  This sounds great.  However your comments and statements below
miss the mark a bit.  That being that any such recommendations, must
be developed with the participation of andy and all of the participating
stakeholders/users.  Presently that is not being done or allowed to be
done.  As such, any such recommendations stand a greater chance
of further degrading the creditability of ICANN and are in consistent
with the White Paper and MoU...

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Danny,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.  Just to let you know, we are on top of the
> requirements for this to be a "consensus policy."  Before we can document
> what is required, we need to finish and finalize the substance of the actual
> recommendations.  Only then can we document the total outreach, the extent
> of disagreement amongst impacted groups, etc. as you have mentioned.
>
> With respect to the timeline, I will leave that answer to our Chairman, but
> I encourage you to voice your onions on the call today.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:18 AM
> To: mcade@att.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; bbeckwith@verisign.com
> Subject: [ga] Consensus Policy Process
>
> Marilyn,
>
> In order to achieve a "consensus policy", one of the obligations is to
> provide a written report and supporting materials (which must include all
> substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the
> proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among
> impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve
>
> adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be
> impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support
> and opposition to the proposed specification or policy.
>
> In view of the fact that Network Solutions, Namesecure.com, BB Online UK
> Ltd.
> and Registrars.com voted against the previous iteration of the draft last
> October, it would be reasonable to assume that they might still consider
> themselves to be "impacted groups".  My questions:
>
> 1.  Has the Task Force documented the extent of disagreement, if any,
> expressed by these parties?  If not, when do you intend to get this
> accomplished?
> 2.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate
> representation of the views of these groups?  Have any of these parties
> participated in the drafting of the current set of proposals?  If not, why
> were they excluded?
> 3.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate
> representation of the views of registrants?  I would think that two-day
> advance notice of an open teleconference only posted by the DNSO
> Secretariat,
> and not on the ICANN site itself, hardly constitutes an outreach that
> achieves "adequate representation".  What do you consider to be an
> "adequate"
> amount of representation?
> 4.  How does the TF intend to document the nature and intensity of the
> opposition of these registrars, if any, to the proposed policy?  Has the TF
> formally asked any of these folks for their opinions as yet?  If not, when
> do
> you plan to do so?  How much time will be allotted for these parties to
> provide a response?
> 5.  Your terms of reference require you to develop broad understanding
> across
> the NC of the issues underlying the
> disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars -- where are
> each of those issues listed, identified and analyzed?
> 6.  Your terms of reference also require the TF to identify any broad policy
>
> issues (separate from contract issues), which
> are the responsibility of the DNSO -- where are those broad policy issues
> articulated within the current documents?
> 7.  Will you ever honor the bylaws and post a timeline for this TF?
>
> --
> 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@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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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