Re: [Fwd: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study]

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Well at least we agree this is worth working on to do the best we cann for our
poor ICANN

> 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.
>

So far we are in complete agreement (although I fear leading to differing
conclusions)

>
> 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.

We could be reaching a compromise here - spell that out, and give it power and
keep the workings of the study group completely open and transparent.

>
> 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.

Herein lies a fundamental difference of opinion on several matters.  Leadership
as set forth in the white papers, should not be conducting studies to determine
what they are doing wrong.  They should not be involved with decisions to alter
their own power base, it is like having felons self punish or evaluate their
wrongdoings or decide what restitution is owed.

Secondly it is bad business to anticipate someones objections and then plan
accordingly, by altering your plan rather than preparing responses to the
objections, we call that prior restraint. But we are not at an impasse here. An
oversight working group may just be the ticket to take care of both positions.

> 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.

You can dang sure post as chair elect or that fine individual, your honor is due
you through your actions not any position.

Danny be perfectly honest this concept kills the WG Review report and brings it
back as a study group report, that is the entire logic behind your proposal.
That if we make it a study group instead of a short lived review - it has
credence.  The concept may be distasteful but no reason alone to throw out your
concept.

>
> 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.

Here is where I see red.they killed it by making it too short so now the only
solution is a study by top down.  We should have just quit rather than get the
first extension.  They used us to help claim legitimacy.  And then are laughing
when the suggestion to hand over the study to their people comes from us. Again
not any reason to kill this concept.

How about a member from the DOC and one from the GAC and two individuals. Drop
kick the lawyers, their place is to make what the study decides work not help
develop policy.

Sincerely


I will not quote him but look for the post where Froomkin responds to several
questions I ask him about continuing wg-review.

--
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