[ga] DNSO Reform: Process Issues

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Seven months ago the Transfers Task Force was formed.  It was supposed to be 
a "fast track review".  One would expect a tremendous amount of discussion on 
the part of TF members to quickly resolve a vexing issue... 

Total list comments in 7 months by each current Transfers TF member (chair 
excluded) --

0 -- Erick Iriarte
1 -- Tony Holmes
1 -- David Safran
1 -- Sloan Gaon
2 -- Mark McFadden
2 -- Nick Wood
2 -- Dan Steinburg
2 -- James Love
3 -- Grant Forsythe
4 -- Elixabeth Porteneuve
4 -- Rick Shera
4 -- Christine Russo
40 - Ross Rader

What does this "fast track" performance tell us?  Obviously, we have a great 
number of members that have no stake or interest at all in the outcome of 
these discussions that inevitably contribute very very little.  One TF member 
has candidly admitted that "I was more or less put on this task force by 
others", and has apologized for "not
being a very good task force member".


The Task Force process is a failure.  

Soon we will receive a report from the Chair of this group that will be 
couched in language like "the TF is considering, is evaluating, is gathering 
input, is discussing..."  

The truth is that there are no "discussions" between TF members.  There has 
been no evaluation of the registrars draft transfer protocol, there has been 
no "discussion" on the broad topic of deletes, there has been no "dialogue" 
on apparent authority or express authorization.

Those that have a major stake in the issue that are allowed to participate 
(such as the registrar community) do their best to contribute in a meaningful 
fashion.  Those that have the greatest stake in the outcome (registrants) are 
not allowed to have representatives, and are told by the Chair that "It is 
the view of the TF that registrants are also represented in the 
constituencies and GA".  That's not much comfort when constituency and GA 
reps contribute almost nothing to the process.  

Most of us want an efficient organization.  Stacking a Task Force with 
appointees that have no real interest in participating just so that the claim 
can be made that all constituencies are involved is a poor way to get work 
done.  

The gTLD constituency has put forth the argument that policy-recommending 
bodies should involve primarily those that are significantly affected by the 
outcome of such decision-making.  There is merit in their viewpoint.  This 
Transfers TF well illustrates the need for true registrant representation, 
and the ideal mix to attack the problem of deletes/transfers would have been 
a joint working group between a registrar and a registrant constituency.  
Unfortunately, we have no registrant constituency within the DNSO, and this 
cripples forward progress.

As the Board considers reform propositions,  please remember that the Board 
may create new Constituencies on its own motion, if it determines that such 
action would serve the purposes of the Corporation.

I ask you to create a Registrants Constituency on your own motion.







  
--
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