Re: [ga] Concerns & Petition

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

Danny and all assembly members,

  I agree as do our members with Danny's concerns here.

  Without GA participation directly, any conclusions from such
a "UDRP Task Force" would not be representative...

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Philip,
>
> I have a number of concerns regarding the UDRP Task Force that I would like
> to discuss with you:
>
> 1.  The lack of a public comment period --
>
> Our Bylaws state:  "Any reports or recommendations presented to the NC by
> such bodies shall be posted on a web site accessible by the public for public
> review and comment; absent clear justification, which shall be publicly
> stated at the time of any action, the NC shall not act on any report or
> recommendation until a reasonable time for public comment has passed and the
> NC has reviewed and evaluated all public comments received. The NC is
> responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been heard and
> considered prior to a decision by the NC."
>
> Public comment is more than a response to a questionnaire.  If the Task Force
> will be drafting recommendations, then a public comment period is needed to
> respond to those recommendations.  I see no indication of that in the current
> timeline posted at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
>
> 2.  The lack of a constituency comment period --
>
> Our Bylaws state:  "Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from
> such a body, the NC may accept the report or recommendation for submission to
> the Constituencies for comment and consultation, or return the report or
> recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work."
>
> There does not appear to be a procedure that allows for the constituencies to
> formally comment on the recommendations cited in this timeline either (which
> would be required prior to a vote:  "After the report or recommendation is
> submitted to the Constituencies and the comment period for the Constituencies
> has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments to determine whether there is
> a basis for a consensus recommendation to the Board."
>
> 3.  The lack of a GA "body" --
>
> Our Bylaws state that the "substantive work of the DNSO" is to be carried out
> by "research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA
> ".  A single GA representative is neither a committee, nor a group, nor a
> body of the GA.  Our Bylaws envisioned a structure whereby the "work" gets
> handled by the members of the GA, with "each recognized Constituency...
> invited to participate in each of such bodies."  Only the "management" of
> such groups is the responsibility of the NC.
>
> Your particular approach is denying the General Assembly its full right to
> participate in the consensus-building process as envisioned by the Bylaws.
> There is a reason why we have had working groups drawn from the General
> Assembly membership to tackle each of the major issues that faced us in the
> past... a working group is the best possible bottoms-up mechanism to discover
> consensus, and yet the NC has decided to not establish a UDRP working group
> (although decisions reached by this Task Force may well impact many
> generations to come).  This decision must be revisited.   Many of us still
> recall the aberrant "conclusions" reached by the last Names Council Task
> Force (Review), and we do not seek to see that failure repeated again... a
> working group is essential on an issue of this importance to counterbalance
> the top-down Task Force approach.
>
> 4.  The lack of consensus mechanisms --
>
> A Task Force alone cannot meet the requirements of consensus.  The Terms of
> Reference for this group indicate that "to the extent no consensus can be
> reasonably reached on an item, majority vote shall rule".  Since when is a
> simple majority considered to be consensus in the ICANN process?   Shall ten
> members of this Task Force decide for all the rest of us, especially when
> eleven of these participants may not even be members of the DNSO?   Consensus
> is more than a majority vote... it documents the extent of agreement and
> disagreement among impacted groups, documents the outreach process used to
> seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are
> likely to be impacted, and documents the nature and intensity of reasoned
> support and opposition to the proposed policy.  -- How do you expect a single
> questionnaire to accomplish all of the above?
>
> 5.  The lack of open processes --
>
> The General Assembly has a large number of members with expertise in the UDRP
> topic and qualified to participate in such discussions; we even have our own
> UDRP mailing list devoted to this subject.  It is not appropriate that these
> interested members be denied the opportunity to formally participate.  Such a
> decision would run counter to the principles of ICANN which call for fair and
> open processes.  A process is not open if it is closed to the bulk of our
> membership.   This issue requires nothing less than a full working group, and
> Working Group D has already established all the necessary policies and
> procedures to satisfy the requirements of the Council.
>
> 6.  Petition --
>
> Further, whereas the Names Council has previously voted to accept the
> recommendations of Working Group D, and whereas such recommendations allow
> for any member of the GA to petition the NC for the formation of a working
> group, I am now formally presenting you and the Names Council with this
> petition to create a UDRP working group to act in conjunction with the UDRP
> Task Force.
>
> The General Assembly appreciates being asked to submit a candidate to the NC
> UDRP Task Force, but any action which contemplates revisions to the UDRP must
> involve a full General Assembly working group as well.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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