[comments-review] DNSO Report v2 Appears Biased, Unfair and Inaccurate

[Derek Conant - DNSGA <dconant@dnsga.org>]

Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

TO:     Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN (DNSO)
 

Dear DNSO Representatives,

After reviewing the DNSO Review Task Force Report v2 (subject report), it is appears that the subject report will only accomplish justifying ICANN's apparent preconceived agendas, whereas, the subject report does not appear to accurately reflect the DNSO Workgroup-Review (WG) participants' overall opinions, viewpoints and ideas as expressed in their comments and, furthermore, the subject report appears to blatantly fly in the face of the spirit and intent of the WG.  It appears that the DNSO is being selective in choosing to report only matters that are closely associated with ICANN's apparent preconceived agendas.

To start, the DNSGA contributed approximately 42 comments to the WG forum concerning the ICANN/DNSO/WG process that appear to have been completely disregarded in the subject report. See, 42 URLs that show DNSGA comments submitted to the DNSO/WG process below:
 1.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01739.html
 2.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01742.html
 3.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01743.html
 4.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01808.html
 5.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01811.html
 6.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01817.html
 7.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01830.html
 8.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01852.html
 9.)    http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01856.html
 10.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01983.html
 11.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01990.html
 12.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01992.html
 13.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02000.html
 14.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02004.html
 15.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02021.html
 16.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02022.html
 17.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02027.html
 18.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02032.html
 19.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02036.html
 20.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02042.html
 21.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02043.html
 22.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02053.html
 23.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02078.html
 24.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02079.html
 25.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02085.html
 26.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02091.html
 27.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02102.html
 28.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02104.html
 29.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02105.html
 30.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02113.html
 31.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02115.html
 32.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02120.html
 33.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02121.html
 34.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02123.html
 35.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02137.html
 36.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02149.html
 37.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02152.html
 38.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02157.html
 39.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02159.html
 40.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02177.html
 41.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02180.html
 42.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02181.html

DNSGA contributing comments, and other WG participants' comments that were significant, submitted to the WG through the WG process, appear to have been completely disregarded in the subject report.

The kind of process the DNSO/WG has shown in the subject report identifies in itself the very same kind of problem that appears to plague ICANN and its current governing process and management of the DNS.

The DNSGA plans to be more specific regarding its opposition to the subject report in supplement comments posted to this public comment forum.

Derek Conant
Chairman of the DNSGA