[wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Dear Eric,

For the first time I find myself disagreeing with you.  We have all been
participants in a bottoms-up process that has generated over 3000 comments
regarding the problems of the DNSO; however, we have obtained only 250
comments in the five weeks since the Board asked for suggestions regarding
improvements.  Also, within a few days, this mailing list is being shut down
by the decision of the Names Council.  No matter how well-considered our
suggestions, no matter how well-conceived and forthright, our
recommendations alone cannot be viewed by the Board as a consensus
conclusion, only as additional welcomed input.

I would contend that the future potential restructuring of the DNSO requires
a consensus verdict.  As such my recommendation to create a Study might well
forestall what very well could be an arbitrary upcoming decision on the part
of the Board.  A Study, if it is to be responsible, must obviously seek the
type of input that a formal working group could provide.  As Sotiris, Y.J.,
Roberto, and myself, among others (including members of the Board) support
the concept of working group input, and whereas all support the need for
public input, I see no possibility of the Study Committee not taking
advantage of that which bottoms-up can provide.

I have been involved in the Review WG long enough to understand the value of
bottoms-up contributions (and I'm surprised to think that you would doubt my
commitment to this process).  I fully support the bottoms-up mechanism.  I
think that it is also important to understand that should such a study be
commissioned, the ICANN Board would expect DNSO leadership to be involved in
a process that may ultimately lead to structural changes.   Perhaps my post
was not sufficiently clear on the point that you have raised.  I am more
than willing to add comments proposing the establishment of a working group
to address the need to find solutions.

Please note that my suggestion was not put forward and signed as the Chair
of the GA; I do reserve the right to post as Danny Younger, individual.  I
am also not acting in a fashion to "kill" a WG Review report.  I welcome the
report, as apparently neither the NC nor the GA has acted to submit any
recommendations in response to Board resolutions 01.28 & 01.29.   I am proud
of the work of this group and expect the Board to be appreciative of this
effort.

Would you agree that 5 weeks is too short, and that a fully budgeted study
is called for?  If you have thoughts on the composition of a Committee to
direct the study, I am open to suggestions.  Your suggestions may well be
better than mine.  Ultimately, it is not I that will decide, it is the
Board.  Eric, we are all trying to help.





--
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