Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

[Sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"babybows.com" wrote:

> So, it comes down to this... instead of fairly representing two divergent
> opinions regarding a possible future restructuring of the DNSO, you choose
> to use the Review WG as a platform to promote only your own personal agenda
> favoring the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.  This is not the
> even-handedness that I expected from the Chair of this group.

Actually, I do present the two divergent opinions.  If you recall, I included
the following:

"Further, there was a considerable amount of discussion around proposals for the
dissolution of the Constituency structure altogether.  In fact, a large majority
in the WGr appeared to favour reorganization along such lines.  Options
discussed included the election of the Names Council directly from the body of
the GA itself.  Although this idea was indeed popular, it represents a long-term
commitment and perspective, which may not be in order at this point, due to the
still nascent nature of the DNSO and ICANN in general, and the immediate need
for representation of Individuals within the DNSO.  A restructuring of the DNSO
based on dissolution of the Constituency Structure would take a good deal of
time and discussion, whereas the need to establish a voice for Individuals
within the current DNSO is immediate.  However, this discussion should not be
simply discarded, it should be revisited at a later point in time, pending a
review of a DNSO that included an Individual’s Constituency (among others). "

Unfortunately, there was nothing substantive agreed upon by anyone with regards
to how such a solution/proposal for a dissolution and restructuring would be
implemented.  Except of course, your take on Jefsey's proposal.  Now, I'm not
saying the idea has no merits, but what I am saying is that very few people took
part in any commentary on said proposal, and it by no means represents any kind
of "consensus" recommendation from the WG, by any stretch of the imagination.
You are welcome to submit it as a personal paper.  On the other hand, the
proposal for an Individual's Constituency has enjoyed pretty much universal
approval within the WG, even if the specifics have not been ironed out, the
idea  itself has widespread support.  Irrespective of whether you like it or
not.

But please, if you have other ideas, do show me the "consensus" support for the
substantive comments which you proposed for the altenative to the Constituency
Structure.

> By stating that the *only* action you wish to see is the immediate
> implementation of the IC, and by jumping to the conclusion that the Board
> will most likely "ignore this" (which will then cause you to take recourse
> in "sending the final WG proposal to a number of outspoken US Senators, and
> the DoC, among others"), you are advancing a confrontational approach that
> to my way of thinking is a disservice both to the DNSO and to ICANN.

No Danny.  What I said was that I would be sending a copy to a "number of
outspoken US Senators, and
the DoC, among others" *concurrently* with the submission to the BoD.  Not *if*
they refuse...  In fact, *you* were the one who jumped to the conclusion that
the BoD will refuse the proposal, I was merely responding to your hypothesis,
and setting up a wider scope of considerations based on your appraisal.

> Perhaps your recommendation would not be ignored if you chose to justify why
> it serves the interests of the Corporation to create a separate Constituency
> for individuals, other than merely stating that there is an "immediate need
> for representation of Individuals within the DNSO".

How's this? `To meet and satisfy the terms of the White paper and the MoU with
respect to the ICW.'  I think that's definitely in ICANN's best interest, and I
am a Member of ICANN.  Who are you to tell me (and others) that we haven't got
the best interests of ICANN in mind?  Do you have a monopoly or something?

> As everyone is at
> liberty to participate in the activities of the General Assembly, and
> whereas every such participant under the bylaws is entitled to bring an
> issue regarding domain name policy to the attention of the NC, one could
> well argue that there is already a vehicle in place which allows for the
> representation of individuals in the DNSO.

But there are no seats on the NC, which means that there is no representation
Danny.

> You seek more than a "voice" for individuals; you seek to grant individuals
> voting rights within the Names Council.

Absolutely.  Obviously you have some kind of problem with this...

> As many of these individuals have
> been regarded as part of a community that thrives on "bashing" ICANN,
> perhaps you could elaborate on what would now prompt the ICANN Board to give
> this new recommendation any more credence than any other prior resolution to
> create such a constituency.

So, now Danny Younger speaks for the Board!  Thanks for that revelation, Mr. GA
Chair.  Just remember who voted for you... BTW, I certainly don't think the
large majority of the WG members are ICANN "bashers".  ALL of us care about the
goings-on in ICANN, it's just that many of the Members are seriously
disappointed with the management of the organization.  I suppose that in your
weltanschaung (world view) there is no reason for an Official Opposition in
governement...  Well Danny, sorry to break it to you, but not everyone involved
in ICANN thinks its roses in ICANN.

> What factors have changed that would warrant a
> reconsideration of a proposal already many times advanced?

George W. Bush?

> There is a need
> for many groups to participate in the DNSO; by what virtue does this group
> have primacy over all others?

It represents the penultimate stakeholders in the ICW: the Individuals (even you
Danny, employee of Register.com).

> A recommendation that does not address a
> process by which *all* may come to have representation is not a
> recommendation; it is a thinly veiled attempt at "capture" that must be
> loudly denounced.

"All"?  Like who exactly?  The Business Community?  the ccTLDs? the ISPs? the IP
lawyers?... but don't they already have representation?  And just who is the IP
Constituency representative of?  Isn't that a blatant attempt at capture?  I
don't hear you denouncing them Danny.

> You have made it clear that you will not offer "improvements to the existing
> operations", because "they can simply reject anything beyond that".  Is this
> how you choose to comply with a reasonable request from our Board?  This
> single-minded type of fanaticism is precisely what is wrong with a
> constituency approach that does no more than advance adversarial "position
> papers" that do not lend themselves to the true building of consensus.  In
> your mind, there is no room for compromise.

Really?  I would say that the IC *is* a compromise, especially since the only
other option presented so far is the dissolution of the current DNSO structure
(something you support! or at least did... perhaps you'll say something
different tomorrow.)

> It's all or nothing, or you
> will scream to any legislative oversight committee that will listen.

That is the only avenue that has not been effectively explored to date.  After
all, as you point out, every other similar recommendation has been rejected.
Does this sound like a pattern?

> Another matter... a straw poll question that purports to evaluate a
> recommendation calling for the "dissolution" of the "DNSO" (which absolutely
> no one has recommended -- Why would we eliminate our own Supporting
> Organization?) is the most maliciously bogus attempt I have ever seen to
> skew the results of a poll within a working group environment.  If this is
> an attempt to validate your "consensus", you have now totally lost all
> credibility.

I think the respondents have spoken quite clearly on this matter so far.  As for
my credibility, please let me worry about that myself.  (If I were you, I
wouldn't be calling out someone else on *their* credibility.)  I wonder what
would happen now, should the NC call for a re-election in the GA?  Don't you?

> You have accused the ICANN Board of "apparent 'efforts' at reforming along a
> bottom-up mandate, without actually reforming."  You have asked, "Why should
> we willingly offer such legitimacy?"

I did not accuse them of anything.  *Nothing* has been done, no advice has or
has not been acted upon.  I merely stated a hypotheitcal situation.  My exact
words (you did not quote them) were:

"If we offer "improvements to the existing operations", they can simply reject
anything beyond that, even though they explicitly requested more.  It would be a
way of
legitimizing their apparent "efforts" at reforming along a bottom-up mandate,
without
actually reforming. Why should we willingly offer such legitimacy?"

Further, are you aware of any operational improvements that were generally
acceptable to the WG as whole, ones which could be construed generally as
"consensus"?  because if you are, please let us know about them.  I found no
such generally accepted proposals in the archives.

> I, for one, do not view the Board as
> an enemy.  They have recognized the dysfunctional state of the DNSO (largely
> as a result of the efforts of this Review WG), and have asked for
> recommendations to restore the organization to a more functional state.
> They are acting responsibly, and in the best interests of the Corporation.

I don't view the Board as an enemy Danny, and I recognize their interest in
reforming the DNSO.  But, until you show me the "consensus" proposals on
operational improvements, I will not include your personal opinions/comments in
the WG Report.  I have chosen the broadest possible agreed upon proposals,
nothing more and nothing less.

> I have been a critic of ICANN, but I am nonetheless a supporter of ICANN.  I
> will willingly offer legitimacy to the ICANN process because I believe in
> that process.  I regret that we are not of the same mind with respect to
> this issue.

I don't think you regret anything, including your obvious contradiction of
yourself.  You do not have a monopoly on what's best for ICANN Danny.

> This working group has given you the responsibility of drafting a final
> report.  I honor that choice and respect your position as Chair.  It is
> inevitable that in a group as large and diverse as ours there will be
> disagreements.  If as Chair you have determined that consensus has been
> reached, and if you are in a position to validate such claims, then my
> minority opinion will not thwart your conclusion.  The report is yours to
> write.  My opinions have been put forth.  We will await the final
> recommendation of the Review Working Group.

Your opinions have been noted.  Thank you for expressing them.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Working Chair, 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