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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> Why isn't the answer to go back to the concept of open Working Groups?
> If honestly administered(*) then no one can say they were excluded, and
> this gamesmanship won't be credible.  Of course, the price is that
> membership won't be manipulable by the people trying to wire the results,
> but you can't have everything.

I would agree with this Michael - but only insofar as the process can be
effectively managed. WG-B/C were each so large as to be unmanageable. While
there was, in my opinion, a ton of consensus ripe for the picking, the
chairs couldn't effectively direct the participants to the degree necessary
to find the diamonds in the rough (nor should they have been reasonably
expected to). With no raw materials, its impossible to polish the results
satisfactorily. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the
TF/WG/Whatever to ensure that consensus is found and that recommendations
based on the consensus can be reasonably implemented.

There are lessons to be gleaned from these failures, but is anyone seriously
and productively looking?

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: "Bret Fausett" <fausett@lextext.com>
Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <philip.sheppard@aim.be>;
<Secretariat@dnso.org>; <bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>;
<touton@icann.org>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List


> Why isn't the answer to go back to the concept of open Working Groups?
> If honestly administered(*) then no one can say they were excluded, and
> this gamesmanship won't be credible.  Of course, the price is that
> membership won't be manipulable by the people trying to wire the results,

> but you can't have everything.
>
> (*) I know from my exclusion from one that this isn't inevitable, but
> maybe we've learned something...
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > 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-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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