[ga] Reply to Eric

["Danny Younger" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Dear Eric,

Please accept my apologies in advance for what will be a lengthy
dissertation in response to your numerous posts to the GA list.  Let me
begin by quoting the adage, "Rome wasn't built in a day".  It has not even
been two weeks since the election rankings were posted, yet you appear to be
rankled by the fact that we have still not completely overhauled the rules
and procedures that guide the General Assembly.

You and I have had the benefit of participating in the Review Working Group.
I recall an observation by Roger Cochetti that is particularly apt; he
stated:  "Instead, the NC appears to have been more focused on procedures,
administrative practices, and matters that are more related to its own
process than to substantive matters."  The same comment might equally come
to be made about the GA should we choose to travel down this path.

I have chosen to focus my attention upon domain name policy issues.  This
is, after all, why we are all here.  I will outline my understanding of our
mission for the benefit of any newcomers to the ICANN process:

The GA is one of two bodies within an organization (the DNSO) that has been
established to provide consensus-based domain name policy guidance to the
ICANN Board.

While the Names Council of the DNSO is organized as a collection of
constituencies, the GA is organized as a collection of individuals (open to
all participants who have a knowledge of and an interest in issues
pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and
who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the
DNSO, including work item proposal and development, discussion of work
items, draft document preparation, and participation in research and
drafting committees and working groups).

As such, the GA is an open forum that is designed to ultimately generate
substantive work-product (documents for consideration by the Board), that
stem from a consensus-based decision-making process.

These documents are central to any decision by the Board to adopt a new
policy as a "consensus policy"; thus, the work of the GA is critically
important.

"Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus among Internet
stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1) the
adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a recommendation
that the policy should be adopted,
by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting
Organization to which the matter is delegated, and (3) 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
policy.

It is the membership of the GA that provides the research and commentary
behind this written report and supporting materials.

A domain name consensus policy is implemented by way of language written
into contracts with accredited registrars and registries.  This is the only
true "power" that ICANN has.  An example of a future domain name policy
might be a decision taken to require registrars
to establish a 30-day grace period for expired domain names (there is no
single industry standard at the moment), and all such policies must
establish the need for such a "uniform" policy to exist (as opposed to
merely allowing for market dynamics to determine that which is in the best
interest of the consumer).

As the DNSO is not charged with the responsibility of preparing contract
language (this is the function of the ICANN staff), the DNSO must work in
advance of contract creation to lay the groundwork for the policy that the
Board may eventually adopt.

This obligation to work well in advance forces the GA membership to listen
to the concerns of the public, to determine whether there exists a need for
a uniform policy, and requires the GA membership to not only engage in
outreach to potentially impacted parties, but also to fully consider,
evaluate and document the extent of opposition and support for any proposed
future policy.

It was the recognition of this need to work well in advance that prompted me
to exercise my rights under the ByLaws to petition the NC to consider a
policy with respect to the upcoming prospect of collisions in namespace.
Should the NC agree to consider this matter, the GA will be called upon to
participate in some fashion.  I have recommended to the NC Chair the
establishment of a working group (which by tradition is provided with its
own mailing list).

Understanding that the GA will need to focus on domain name policy matters
in a more efficient manner, I have written to both the DNSO Secretariat and
to the NC Chair requesting assistance in the establishment of topical
mailing lists for the open committees that the GA will soon come to
establish.

The creation of additional mailing lists will hopefully result in a
task-oriented focus that will tend to limit the amount of acrimony that the
GA list has had to endure.  I am sure that you will agree that there were
very few incidents of "flaming" on the Review WG list (as the demand to get
the job done within a limited time frame clearly took precedence).

It is now time to determine our agenda for the immediate future.  Several
good suggestions have been made so far with regard to the types of issues we
may first wish to confront.  We may decide to work in parallel to the NC and
create lists for WHOIS/Privacy, UDRP, evaluating the new TLD rollout,
evaluating the Multilingual domain name test-bed operations, ongoing DNSO
Review.  We may instead decide to forge our own path and look at domain name
pre-registration activities, allegations of domain name hoarding, etc.  The
choice is ours to make.

Eric, within the Review WG your contributions were highly valued.  You chose
a topic area and provided all of us with a new understanding and
appreciation of the issues involved.  I am similarly looking forward to your
involvement in the GA as we move ahead to tackle some difficult areas.
Within the Review WG, rules were almost non-existent, yet we managed to get
the job done, on time, and in a thorough manner (and the Board responded to
our effort).

I would ask you to set aside your personal differences with myself and
Patrick, and to join us in making the GA an effective instrument for change.
You have strength of character, drive, initiative, and we would all count
ourselves fortunate to have your support.

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