ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] comments - your proposed draft terms of reference


hello YJ.....
 
i have had the opportunity to review the document you distributed to a limited number of parties entitled "Subject: Terms of Reference[version 0.2] : Review Working Group" and have a few comments to make and suggestions for review
 
1. why did you not see fit to distribute this in advance to the full council considering the fact that you are seeking the council's agreement  on this "inclusive working group" it would seem to me (speaking as an individual member) that it would be most important to receive "all perspectives" in the proposed scope and goals for this working group ?
 
2.There is in the early section of this proposal certain "personal opinions" being presented,  (specifically:"Skepticism and apathy have developed among many participants due to a failure to see past Working Groups' own consensus reflected in the later actions of the Names Council or ICANN Board")
which would incline any many readers to believe that the working group is being "lead in a specific direction" rather than being developed for the purpose of studying the current system and making proposals to make it more effective and inclusive "for all" in the future.
 
my personal feeling is that this section of the preamble is more of an opinion rather than a positive statement of objectives of the group and could create dissention & controversy  at a point in this process where it is not necessary to do so.     
 
the creation of and future work of this working group should no be an "adversarial process" but a collaborative & cooperative one. 
 
in summary, i believe that it is essential that we get off to a good start with this group and all work hard to avoid any possibility of "pre-concieved" images of biases here. we must insure that, given the sensitive nature of the topic that  this group remains "totally inclusive", open to all views and perspectives and unbiased in its operation.
 
 to that end i notice that there are no names of any members of the IP  or ISP constituancies on the mailing list, (please feel free to correct me if i am wrong here ), you have currently been distributing the draft document to and would suggest that you make it a point to reach out to this group as well in the formulative process to avoid any perception of  bias or non-inclusion. 
  
i look forward to receiving the proposal in the near future
 
best wishes
 
ken stubbs
 
 
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>