Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

[Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>]

So here's the game I'd play if I were in charge of the registrars. I'd
divide the 140 odd registrars into three groups, figuring that opposition
from 40+ registrars is certainly the kind of thing that could kill a
"consensus" policy. I'd steer the (G/D)NSO policy process as best I could
with my single task force representative, asking the rest of my constituency
to stay quiet. I'd see what the task force recommended to the NC. Regardless
of the result, I'd figure that I could still make the result better for my
registrar interests. I'd then ask my first block of registrars to weigh in
with their vigorous opposition. We'd negotiate a little more at the NC
level, make the process better for registrars and come up with a new
recommendation for the Board. At this point, my second registrar block of 40
would noisily complain about the result. We'd repeat the negotiations and
make things even better for the Board vote. I'd still have 40 previously
silent registrars to file an independent review if I remained unhappy with
the result. 

That's not the way this is supposed to work, is it? Isn't there an
obligation on impacted parties to come forward with their views as early as
possible, preferably during the task force process via the task force
representative?

          -- 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