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

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Milton:

> My concern is precisely that every constituency and its
> representative had indicated support until Louis' message.

The gTLD Constituency didn't change its stance on the TF proposal in
response to Louis's message. It did, however, react very strongly to
the last minute changing of the proposal.

> 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'm not sure that these issues are entirely distinct. ICANN Staff
has recently been involved in the negotiation of three sponsored
TLDs. This process generated some discussion within and among the
sponsoring organizations about the suitability of at least some
staff action but I can't remember any of this commentary relating to
the means by which the ICANN people arrived in their offices. I
suspect that at least some of the shared aspects of the experience
of the sTLD sponsors, thus far, are likely to be encountered in the
situation that will confront the prospective sponsor of newORG. If
anyone who is likely to be on the ICANN side of the table as this
process advances wants to provide advice prior to NC action on the
TF report, it's a fair bet that that advice may prove to be very
useful. This becomes even more important if the notion of
sponsorship is abandoned.

> 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.

As I understand it, the NC is supposed to signal when there is a
consensus basis for such policy but is not itself an author of
policy. Is it mandated anywhere (and this is a sincere question
posed in admission of the possibility of my having overlooked
something with which I ought already to be familiar) that the NC may
only heed input from its TFs on matters for which TFs have been
created, or that the Board is bound to exclude everything other than
NC recommendations from its deliberations?  (I am not so bug-eyedly
naive as to be unaware of the broad spectrum of responses that these
remarks might trigger :-)

/Cary