DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [council] attending to content and consensus


Complaints about constituencies are not within the scope of the
Independent Review process.

Under the bylaws (Article VI-B, Section 3), constituencies operate with
a degree of autonomy.  The Names Council's role does not include delving
into internal constituency matters.  On the other hand, the Names
Council is responsible for managing the consensus building process of
the DNSO, including determining whether a consensus has been
demonstrated.  In that role it should consider the views of stakeholders
who participate in the various constituencies.  As you suggest to
Philip, the Names Council may wish to develop a framework for ensuring
that stakeholders' views are correctly understood.

Best regards,

Louis Touton

"Chicoine, Caroline G." wrote:
> Louis, should these kind of complaints and those raised earlier by Danny
> Younger be forwarded to ICANN's Advisory Committee on Independent Review?
> These complaints are important to consider, but until you have all the
> facts, they end up turning into numerous emails of bantering going back and
> forth and waste alot of the council's time.
> If not, Philip, I think that a small group of NC members should be set up to
> deal with these types of complaints. Perhaps we could add this to the 2002
> Business Plan.  It could be small like the Intake Committee and have a
> similar function as ICANN's Advisory Committee on Independent Review.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:29 PM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Subject: [council] attending to content and consensus
> Importance: High
> While there is some significance to the fact that Milton chose to resort to
> his usual, ad hominem mode, let's try to focus on substance.
> Namely:
> >* The NCDNHC has expressed solid support for
> >the principles underlying the current agreement.
> >We are probably the only constituency that has
> >had a vote on this, and it was passed in MdR
> >overwhelmingly.
> (I assume that Milton meant "underlying the current proposal" rather than
> "current agreement".)
> Milton's statements are quite simply false.  The working group agreed to
> Sponsored,Restricted.  There has been no consensus established concerning
> the new constraints.
> The potential problems with S,R were raised in the constituency, long ago,
> but the constituency chose to ignore those concerns.
> As to the points I included in my previous note, there has been no
> discussion of it, or equivalent, issues.  And there certainly has been
> absolutely no development of consensus, much less any effort to assess it.
> Milton is free to try to provide substantiation of his claim about
> consensus.  Perhaps his resorting to attack mode is because he knows he
> will not succeed.
> d/
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

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