[council] Who should participate in policy formulation?
- To: "Names Council (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [council] Who should participate in policy formulation?
- From: "Harold J. Feld" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:02:21 -0400
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
On the last conference call, the gTLDs and registrar representatives
(Roger and Ken) raised two points in the discussion that I think need
some general response and consideration.
1) At one point, Ken raised teh concern that making certain changes was
an undeserved "carrot" the ccTLD consticuency.
2) At a different point, Roger argued that a consticuency which says
"this item does not effect me" should not participate in formulating a
As regards to the first point, I don't think we should worry about
"carrots" and "sticks" in this drafting exercise. If the goal is to
build an ICANN that has support among stakeholders, one of the things
that has to happen is we look at where stakeholders have expressed
disatsifaction and try to fix it. This is not a "carrot" or a "reward,"
in my opinion. It is a practical understanding that a consticuency can
have some real complaints about how things have worked in the process
and that this represents an opportunity to fix those problems.
As such, I really hope we can set aside fights that arose under the
previous system. One of the primary purposes of this exercise is to
eliminate the points of friction and get ICANN working smoothly and
generally accepted among stakeholders. This cannot happen if we hold
grudges and try to"punish" consticuencies for the very frictions we are
trying to eliminate.
As regards to the second point, a consticuency can quite legitimately
take a position that something doesn't effect it and want to stay in the
policy development. For one thing, they may discover someday that they
are wrong, and that they will have missed their only chance to set
policy. It is not productive to force consticuencies to chose between
participating and maintaining that a certain policy lies outside their
In addition, the development of policy can be aided from the experience
of other constituencies, even where those consticuencies do not appear
directly affected. Particularly at preliminary stages, we should
broaden, rather than narrow, the avilable pool of expertise.
Finally, as some one else added on the call, a party not directly
affected can often play a role as mediator or "honest broker" if a