Re: [ga] Council debate on GNSO reform

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Hello Chuck,

I will admit to having tried to paint the problem with a fairly broad brush.  
I can also accept the contention that the gTLD Constituency is actively 
involved, although we are obliged to take your word for it (as in the absence 
of a publicly-archived discussion list there is still no way for anyone else 
to corroborate this fact).  Be that as it may, we still have to somehow 
collaboratively figure out a better way to deal with the broken process in 
the DNSO/GNSO. 

It has previously been argued that ideally consensus should be determined at 
a level below the Board.  Recent history, however, and what appears to be the 
current intent of the Board, seem to make it clear that this argument is now 
a moot point as all purportedly consensus-based policy decisions are in fact 
now being decreed at the Board level anyway.

This being the current reality, why then go through the continuing effort of 
butchering, mangling, filtering and distorting policy recommendations through 
a Council process that yields high-level resolutions of limited value?  What 
do any of us gain through this pointless attempt to forge a numerical 
consensus if the Board is fully prepared to dismiss these results out-of-hand?

Doesn't it make a lot more sense for each constituent group to simply send 
their views directly to the Board?  Let's be honest... this is what you and 
the registrars did to oppose the DNSO resolution on funding the DNSO 
Secretariat.  The registry and registrar members of the Budget Advisory Group 
got together and issued a separate contrary recommendation to the Board 
recommending no ICANN funding for the DNSO Secretariat, and the point of view 
of your constituencies prevailed.

The technique seems to work well enough, and it forces those in opposition to 
equally craft well-considered and compelling arguments.  I'm in favor of 
giving the Board the widest possible range of well-presented arguments upon 
which to base a decision rather than trying to condense all of these 
arguments into the palid mush that normally emerges from the Council process. 
 

It would be nice to know what the Board really wants...  Would they prefer 9 
or 10 cogent position papers from different groups complete with accompanying 
issue analysis, or would they rather rely on a single Staff summary and what 
they have been getting lately from the Council?  Perhaps one day they'll 
actually join us in discussion and clarify their thinking somewhat.  In the 
meantime, I suppose we'll have to rely upon Joe to convey the sense of the 
Board.



--
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