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

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Milton:

>> 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).

If the NC were to decide not to put a TF report forward, would that
not effectively render the efforts of the TF invisible?  In the case
of the .org TF, the NC decided to defer taking final action on the
report as submitted. I would think it prudent to do what might be
necessary to ensure that a final positive decision is taken at its
next meeting. I don't share your certainty in understanding the TF
to be the entity empowered to establish the framework for newORG. Do
we agree that the NC might justifiably hesitate before forwarding
something to the Board that it didn't expect to have a reasonable
chance of being met favorably there?  If the NC does not have such
concern, I'd have to agree that yesterday's action was puzzling.

>> 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.

Right. The NC, not the TF, is putting this forward to the Board.
It seems clear from yesterday's discussion that the NC feels in no
way bound to use our report verbatim. The concerns expressed about
our report will need to be resolved either through the agency of the
TF or via some other channel. If it should turn out that this
process can be abetted by the inclusion of voices external to the NC
in the discussion that lies ahead, I can't see how anything stands
to be damaged.

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

Is there something in the by-laws that prevents anyone who pleases
from submitting a proposal to the ICANN Board about means for
addressing the newORG question?  Even if the TF report were to be
presented to the Board precisely as we have worded it, there is
absolutely nothing that constrains the Board from taking action
suggested by other channels that it feels provides a better solution
to the underlying problems.

> > 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. ;-)

I can't claim credit for having come up with the category. It is the
fourth square in the matrix given by the combination of notions of
sponsorship and restriction. We've already got the other three
combinations. My contribution to the discussion was to point out
that if we wanted to have a TLD that had both a clearly delimited
target community and did not have any restrictions on who may
register in the domain, a rubric could be found in pre-existing
terminology. I don't recall ever having taken a stance on the
practical viability of such a construct but Louis sure did. Having
revised the way the thing is being labelled strikes as a very useful
step in accomodating his concerns. I personally feel that it might
be useful to address them further in direct dialog between Louis and
the TF but I am not going to presume either that this is practically
viable or that anyone else even shares the sentiment.

> 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.

Given that an attribute of sponsorship, at least thus far, is the
empowerment to select registrars, these are probably not independent
issues.

> 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.

It might also be possible that the NC was not confused and that they
have concerns which you haven't fully appreciated.

> I suggest that we start by adopting that limitation.

I am as eager as anyone else for our efforts not to be dissipated in
endless discussion. I am, however, not certain that the crucial
points have as yet been identified.

/Cary