RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Colleagues-

Speaking personally the (new) deal may have some merits. Of course, any deal
that took months to negotiate can hardly be reviewed in a few days. I
disagree with the "throw away" remark "There is never enough time"

Speaking as a NC member (ccTLD), we have an obligation to advise the BoD on
policy. No matter what anyone else has said, in my opinion there is a policy
shift here. Again, I am not saying it is a "bad deal", just that it is
clearly a policy shift.

Process is important, especially in these days of intense ICANN scrutiny.

Therefore, I will argue for an extension of 30 days, which, I am sure if
VSGN and ICANN agreed on, would be accepted by US DOC.

That would provide a short, but reasonable time to evaluate, discuss with
our constituencies, provide inputs to the BoD, and respect the ICANN
process.

Assuming the outcome of the advice was to go with the new deal rather than
maintaining the "automatic status quo" of the existing deal, there would be
an opportunity for the larger Internet community to "buy into" the benefits
of the new deal. This action would vaildate the legitimacy of the ICANN
process, instead of destroying it.

Assuming the outcome of the advice was to retain the status quo, I can not
see that another 30 days delay in the implimentation could possibly have a
great downside.

peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of DPF
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:57 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions


On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:06:14 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:

>There is never enough time.  There are always constraints.  It is trivially
>easy to put forward many complaints.

Yes it is but it is also trivially easy to judge if complaints are
trivial or have real substance.  IMO what has correctly been described
as proposed major policy reversals without time to consult is not
trivial.

>The hard work is in living in the reality of this world and trying to be
>constructive.  The Names Council chose to waste its time complaining.

As I said elsewhere they do not have a mandate to make up policy on
the spot on their own.  their role is to seek consensus.  I'm suer as
individuals they had many views on the proposals.

>Even more fascinating is the implication that the Names Council believes it
>should be part of contract negotiations.  I'd be interested in hearing
>about other organizations that are involved in line management and
>operations, that use such an inefficient management model.

This over-states the issue.  No-one suggests a committee should
negotiate a contract.  However it is usual for such negotiations to
take place within an approved framework or upon request from a Board.

This proposal was not requested by the DNSO or the ICANN BoD.  At no
stage did the staff seek Board or DNSO input as to what is or is not
acceptable to negotiate.  If they had then it might well be possible
to quickly endorse such a contract, but by failing to get any
negotiating framework it is little surprise that there are objections
from those elected to policy bodies.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html