Re: [wg-review] Re: Are we dead?

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

Giving credit to the DNSO/WG, I believe that the WG really tried to put
in place a fair and clearly defined process within the WG, however, the
fundamental flaw in the WG process appears to be that ICANN policy makers
may have participated within the WG voting process of which the WG relied
upon for its direction.

I raised the question:  Have any representatives of ICANN/NC, or representatives of any other ICANN policy making body, vote within this WG voting process?  DNSO/WG did not reply to my question.  See, copy of DNSGA comment at DNSO URLs below:
1.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02152.html
2.)   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02180.html

Representatives of ICANN/NC, or representatives of any other ICANN policy making body, should have known better and acknowledged their conflict of interest if they in fact voted within the WG voting process to unduly influence its direction.

Derek Conant
 

Sotiropoulos wrote:

"Randel H. Hanes" <hanes@hanesdesktop.net> wrote:

>Apparently this work group's function has played out. Now the DNSO is the
>"DNSO public comments on the DNSO Review Task Force Report v2" phase.

Phase?  Do you mean to say that you've seen evidence of clearly defined process
in the workings of the DNSO?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html