Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

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

Danny and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

  I agree with your brief evaluation here to a very great degree Danny.
However it confuses me in that you are also recommending to the
ICANNATLARGE.ORG to work with the DNSO ICANN Task
forces.  Can you possibly explain that?

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> 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@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