Re: [ga] WLS Conference Call

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

George writes:  "I figure that consensus process would take 3 to 6 months, 
and not come out in favour of WLS in any event."

If only that were true.  Sadly, what will pass for the "consensus process" 
will transpire within a few days.  

The Transfers TF will hold one more teleconference tomorrow, and will then 
undertake a "comprehensive review" that will last all of two days.  It will 
then post a recommendation this Friday 24 May.   The public will be given ten 
days (until June 4) to respond to this "recommendation".  The TF will then 
spend only part of one day analyzing the public response and will then submit 
its recommendation to the Names Council that same day.  Two days later the 
Council will meet and rubber-stamp the recommendation so that it can be 
submitted to the Board.  

This is not due diligence.  This is not a "fair" process.  This is shoddiness 
elevated to new heights, and this is flagrantly in violation of our own 
bylaws, which state:

Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a body, the NC 
may accept the report or recommendation for submission to the Constituencies 
for comment and consultation, or return the report or recommendation to the 
body from which it originated for further work. After the report or 
recommendation is submitted to the Constituencies and the comment period for 
the Constituencies has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments to 
determine whether there is a basis for a consensus recommendation to the 
Board.

The NC is not supposed to be voting upon any recommendation put forth by any 
task force until after the "Constituency Comment Period" expires (which is 
not synonymous with the public comment period).  Instead what we will see 
will be a violation of the bylaws (again) in the rush to force through a 
recommendation in order to meet an arbitrary deadline.  

Our bylaws also state that:  The NC is responsible for ensuring that all 
responsible views have been heard and considered prior to a decision by the 
NC.  

Registrars are an affected party in this matter.  Has the task force 
solicited the views of all registrars, or only those that pay to be members 
of the registrars constituency?  Has the Task Force solicited the views of 
any registrant organizations?   Are registrants represented on the Task 
Force?  If so, who is their representative?  Have the views of all current 
WLS providers been heard?  If so, where are their comments posted?  Other 
registries will be impacted by whatever recommendation comes forth (as what 
affects .com and .net will eventually affect the other TLDs at a later date). 
 Where is the record of the responsible views of the other registries?  

I don't really care if everyone on this list (or on the TF) is a member of 
the I-Hate-VeriSign-Club.  We have an obligation to "fairness" which should 
take priority over our personal views, and "fairness" calls for proper 
procedures to be followed.  The Task Force timetable does not allow for due 
diligence, and the legitimacy of the entire process is called into question 
when certain members of the community are not represented in the 
policy-formulating bodies.  

Finally, all responsible views are not heard by the NC when Task Force 
representatives themselves fail to forward all relevant comments made by 
those that they represent to the Task Force for evaluation.  How many 
comments by George, Brett, William, myself or others have been forwarded to 
the TF by the GA rep?  None so far.
--
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