Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Michael,

You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task Force 
concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging 
participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves at 
a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that 
haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now 
take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers 
(bringing us back to square one).  

While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim 
recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing 
contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values, in 
conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a 
treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar 
constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task 
Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised by 
Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.

This raises the following questions:

1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy 
development process within the TF, interacting with their 
representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post their 
comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the 
publication of an Interim Report?
2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on the 
TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of such 
great concern to the constituency?
3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either yourself 
or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to 
their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual 
consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?

What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to cooperate 
within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves 
nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need to 
take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes before 
we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than trash 
the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to 
arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.

Best regards,
Danny

--
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