Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Bret and Chuck,

At 23.08.2002 13:53, Bret Fausett wrote:
>A majority of the group's members (though not all) shared your view that
>task forces were too important in the current policy-making scheme. So there
>was a deliberate attempt to dilute their importance to the process by making
>them boring. As you'll see in the draft, task forces primarily exist to
>coordinate data gathering efforts. Mapping out policy concerns and solutions
>has been pushed down, in the first instance, from task forces to the
>constituencies. Task forces assimilate the constituency reports and the
>public comments and then package them for debate in the Council. (Also
>remember that in the Blueprint, additional GNSO constituencies are expressly
>contemplated. We may well see an individuals constituency, a small business
>constituency and/or an academic constituency.) In my view, this is a step
>closer to "bottom up" policy development than in the status quo.

Two thoughts:
-- The GA has, at least sometimes, been quite good at one thing: 
   Mapping out *concerns*, maybe you could call it policy exploration.
   There's just too little time to do that during NC calls, and I
   wonder whether that will now start to happen within GNSO 
   constituencies. Thomas and I have already argued that an inclusive
   GA with more participation from the constituencies would be great,
   but I'm not sure whether that will happen.
   Related: http://www.byte.org/blog/2002/08/17.html#a92
   (Possible solution: Keep a forum open for mapping out concerns,
   /even/ if some of the concerns may be exaggerated or even silly.)
-- Constituencies become even more important in this system. They
   now have to come up with concerns and solutions in their reports.
   The lack of an individual domain holder constituency becomes
   even more glaring. (Possible solution: Create one. Avoid prior
   mistakes. Have to think about that. ;)

At 23.08.2002 17:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will have
>the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
>won't.

I understand and can imagine that you would like some players to go
away. However, I don't believe that is going to happen: Stuart Lynn
originally proposed some shifts and changes, but the fact that we
are now at a DNSO-like GNSO again shows that all players are still
interested enought to fight for keeping their place. 

But I submit that the approach the gTLD registries constituency
currently seems to take -- not taking part too much in the DNSO process
and calling for its own Supporting Organization -- does not look like
a road to success. If the gTLD registries discuss and deliberate as
much as you say, wouldn't it be more convincing if the output was
a (not necessarily large) number of documents showing the positions
within the constituency? Since there is no publicy archived mailing
list, people can only look at your website which, it seems, has been
abandoned at some point in late 2001 and features only a restructuring 
proposal of October 4, 2001. 

An even more radical approach would of course be to help starting a 
place for individual registrants participation in the future GNSO -- 
that would be certainly be in line with your call for paying attention 
to substantially affected parties. 

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
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