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

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

>>> ck@nic.museum 12/14/01 03:11PM >>>

> If the NC were to decide not to put a TF report forward, 
> would that not effectively render the efforts of the TF invisible?  

Cary, Elisabeth:
OK, if that's what you were saying then we are in 
total agreement. 

(I must note, however, that if I really thought the 
problems we were having were with the Names 
Council and the constituencies it represents I 
would be more than willing to go back to the 
drawing board. My concern is precisely that 
every constituency and its representative had
indicated support until Louis' message. It is the
objection of an unelected mgmt which has done
no consultation with anyone, not the constituencies,
that represent the main roadblack at this point. 
But it is not profitable to pursue that problem here.
Let's drop it and concentrate on .org divestiture.)

> I would think it prudent to do what might be
> necessary to ensure that a final positive decision 
> is taken at its next meeting. 

Of course. That won't be difficult IF we limit our
deliberations to the very narrow problems 
identified and don't try to start over.

> The concerns expressed about our report 
> will need to be resolved either through the agency of the
> TF or via some other channel. 

As I have said, there were two concerns: 
a) registrars fears of regulation, or of being cut off.
b) whether sponsored or unsponsored is the right model

And yes, I agree these issues are related, no one ever
said they weren't Elisabeth. But it also helps to distinguish 
them. 

For example, if we decide that we don't want to
in any way restrict registrar practices, then 
(according to Louis) we must abandon the sponsored
model, because that was the only significant policy
making power we were delegating to the sponsoring 
organization. 

> 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.

That is not true. ICANN policies are supposed to reflect
a consensus and the bottom up process of the SOs 
are the only mechanism available for systematically
developing and documenting consensus. You might 
take a look at the MoU with Commerce Department
and the sections on representation. 

> I can't claim credit for having come up with the category. 

Ummm. OK.

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

Then tell me what they are, if you can.