<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Tucows Comments to the Implementation Committee on the Names Policy ...
Ross,
Allow me to commend you on your latest commentary on the Names Policy
Development Process.
In this document you have proposed that the work-product of a study group be
sent directly, unfiltered, to the Board so as not to be "reduced to mush by
the Names Council". This leads me to pose the same question earlier asked by
Joe Sims in a slightly different context: why do we need a NC or for that
matter a SO? Why not just have the constituencies deal directly with the
Board, since the NC under these circumstances is not offering any value added
to the process?
Certainly if we need (below the Board level) to hammer out agreements and to
arrive at some form of consensus, it is certainly possible to return to the
use of the open Working Group as a justifiable alternative to the Council.
These fully open working groups allow for unfettered discussion and involve
members of the At-Large community as well as members of the constituencies in
a mutual effort to arrive at a Community view. Such groups generate
thousands of comments on a single issue and have demonstrated their
capability to work within strict timelines and to produce concrete results,
unlike the lethargic and unproductive Task Forces. Allow me to remind you
that the Review Working Group generated 1500 comments and a comprehensive
report in just three weeks over the course of the year-end holidays.
I agree with you that study groups should be entitled to communicate their
findings directly to the Board, and I share the view that the Task Force
process has failed in large measure because some constituencies sitting on
the Names Council have little interest in the issues that are of great
importance to others, but I still don't see the actual need for a Council...
what do they bring to the table?
In your view the function of the GNSO Steering Council is to ensure that
proper consultation and vetting of the issue will take place before it is
returned to the Board for decision. In an open working group environment,
all that are willing to participate and consult are at liberty to freely
contribute to the process, and the large number of participants (it can
easily exceed one hundred interested parties) assures that the issue is
properly vetted.
So, what added value does a Steering Council provide? Why not have all
business that requires a vote simply be conducted within the General Assembly
on the basis of one-person/one-vote? Surely, this is much more democratic
and encompasses all the parties in the GNSO policy deliberating environment
excluding none. When a democratic unit is small, one truly has no need for
"representative" systems, and the GNSO is certainly small in terms of its
true membership.
An elected leader and regular plebiscites are all that are needed. I see no
rationale for the continued existence of a Council or for the financial
burden that membership in such a Council imposes upon the constituencies.
I look forward to hearing your views on the subject.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|