Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

You know in some ways, it seems that if it weren't for such a lack of trust 
due to constant and consistent moves from the top down that broke and 
prevented bottoms up, this could almost sound positive.
Perhaps there is an "out" built in here for BoD members that want this to 
work.

hmm,
eric


> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> I certainly agree with your general theme even if I don't agree with
>> everything you say.  In my opinion, the group is recommending a
>> perpetuation of a current failure, just as you say.  Although I am not
>> neccessarily opposed to the task force concept, I personally think the
>> current implementation of it is a joke.
> 
> In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea if the advisory
> group responsible for the recent draft had prepared a more detailed
> overview of its thinking. I certainly can't speak for the group, but
> perhaps this will help peoplee understand the draft better.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Read the draft again with that in mind, and I think you'll see some
> significant improvements.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the policy process was greatly constrained by
> the Blueprint's requirement that it occur in "60 days or less." We
> simply couldn't do it and so recommended a process that will take 95
> days or less. Personally, I'm hard pressed to devise a system that is
> more bottom up that could take place on anything close to the
> Blueprint's tight schedule.
> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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


--
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