Re: [ga] Concerns & Petition

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Philip,

on 7/1/01 10:59 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com at DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> Philip,
> 
> I have a number of concerns regarding the UDRP Task Force that I would like
> to discuss with you:

The suggestion from our Chair for the NC to form a GA WG-UDRP is a good one
as it provides the necessary link in the chain between the Task Force and a
proper consensus building procedure required by the ByLaws.

Whatever differences the GA may have with the NC in terms of operational
procedures and processes, one GA core principle is to support the NC in its
endeavors, which it undertakes by engaging in consensus building procedures.

While the GA recognizes that members of the NC are also members of the GA,in
turn, the NC acknowledges that a recommendation made without consensus from
the GA has no merit. Not only do the Constituencies have a role to play in
the consensus building procedure required by the ByLaws, but also the GA as
a whole. 

Currently, the GA includes many individuals disenfranchised by the current
constitunecy structure and adversely affected by failures of UDRP. These
voices have a right to be heard, taken into account and reported to the BoD.

The NC has called for the GA to elect one representative to sit on its UDRP
Task Force. The GA response to that call has revealed a surprisingly large
and diversified pool of qualified members willing and able to take on the
role. To expect one individual to serve all GA interests and undertake this
task in isolation is asking a lot.

The question is, "Does the NC call (for one individual to represent the GA
on the UDRP Task Force) constitute restrictive practices that limit the
consensus building process as required by the ByLaws?" From the GA's
perspective, the answer could well be yes. This is not what the ICANN Board
wants to hear.

If whomsoever is elected to the position of GA rep on the NC Task Force is
also the Chair of the WG-UDRP, the elected representative would then conduct
discussions in the WG and have responsibility to report its findings to the
NC Task Force. In this way, the integrity of the NC Task Force is not
compromised, yet would have the benefit of a fully documented consensus
building procedure accounting for all opinions in the GA, inclusive of both
grass roots and legal viewpoints, amongst others.


As Chair of the NC, I urge you to reconsider the proposed procedures for
dealing with the matter of UDRP, expand outreach in this way, and by doing
so, bolster the policy recommendations made by the NC, whatever they may be
ultimately. 

Regards,

Joanna Lane
http://www.internetstakeholders.com






--
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