[nc-org] Let's respect and try to retain bottom up process

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Cary:
These comments are quite constructive, however,
there is a degree of cognitive dissonance regarding
some fundamental issues of process. Let
me go through your comments and explain:

>>> ck@nic.museum 12/14/01 05:23AM >>>
> One key concern is ensuring that our TF is recognized 
> as having played a signficant role in establishing the 
> framework for newORG.

??? According to ICANN's and the DNSO's defined
procedures, the TF is THE delegated entity for
establishing the framework for newORG. A TF is
appointed by the NC, its report is sent up to the NC, 
and the NC sends it up to the Board (not the 
management).

> A clear metric of our success will be the extent to 
> which our report is reflected in what ends up being 
> presented to the ICANN Board. 

Here is where I am quite baffled. The NC Report,
by ICANN's own by-laws, should be presented directly
and without modification to the ICANN Board.

If our report is not "presented to the Board,"
what is?

> Should we fail to do so, we will have done no 
> service to the NC and may, if things go really 
> wrong, erode its credibility as an articulator of 
> consensus.

The real threat to the DNSO and its organs as an
"articulator" of consensus comes from those who
participate only nominally in the formal, public,
bottom-up process and rely instead on behind
the scenes negotiations and their own personal
channels. 

I think we can all agree that it is fundamentally
destructive to lure people into spending months 
of hard labor on a task force and then, despite its 
following all the rules, despite engaging in all the 
consultations required, and despite producing
a report that is viable and widely accepted, supersede
that process with another, completely ad hoc one
at the last minute. Yet this has been a defining
characteristic of ICANN in its first three years.

Do you want to spend another three years
wrangling about process and dealing with questions
about ICANN's legitimacy? This is a good way to
continue that. Do you want to encourage
cynicism about Names Council processes? The outcome
of this exercise will affect that. How many
people are going to invest the time and effort
it takes to develop a policy a produce a good
report when their efforts are rewarded by
pre-emption at the last minute?

> One step in the right direction has been our 
> relinquishing the "sponsored unrestricted" 
> categorization.

You still remember, I hope, that you came up 
with this category. ;-)

As I have already indicated, I don't care about
the categorization; I care about the policy 
objectives we are trying to achieve.

There are two clearly identifiable issues we 
have to deal with:

1. Registrars - the degree to which they are 
"qualified" or "regulated" or otherwise affected. 

2. Whether we want to achieve those objectives
via a sponsored or unsponsored domain.

I am deeply concerned about the fact that the NC
(probably due to confusion and lack of time)
refused to limit the scope of these extended 
discussions to those. 

I suggest that we start by adopting that limitation.
--MM