Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all assembly members,

  With the possible exception of the DNSO GA, I am in agreement with
Chuck here.  The DNSO "Constituency Model" has not worked and the
NC has also been an abject failure overall and especially in regards
to reflecting the measured consensus view of the constituencies..

  As the "GNSO" is just another abomination on the same or similar
scale, it too will likely be a failure if not a more disgusting and
debilitating
one the DNSO has been thus far.

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.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:53 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> >
> >
> > 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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