Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I don't think I said that task forces are illegitimate.

The implication was certainly there...."I personally believe that is why
many people currently are trying to take shortcuts with regard to consensus
development (e.g., task forces).  They
are easier and take less effort and it's not too hard to convince some
people that they are legitimate, but in reality they are a far cry from what
the bylaws and contracts between ICANN and registries demand."


> They are simply
> just one small part of the process.  Task forces in and of themselves are
> not enough.  They need to do a lot more than have a discussion and take a
> vote.  They need to reach out to all stakeholders and document the
outreach
> process.  They need to demonstrate that key stakeholders are all
> represented.  They need to document arguments for and against. etc.

Which is precisely as it is written up in the by-laws. It seems though that
this runs contrary to the point that you were trying to make earlier. This
morning, you said that task forces were a short-cut that did not meet the
requirements of the by-laws and contracts - this evening you're simply
saying that the NC needs to ensure that the TF's operate in accordance with
the by-laws. All in all, I'm not sure exactly what you *are* saying.

-rwr




--
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