RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will have
the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
won't.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:53 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> 
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > I certainly agree with your general theme even if I don't agree with
> > everything you say.  In my opinion, the group is 
> recommending a perpetuation
> > of a current failure, just as you say.  Although I am not 
> neccessarily
> > opposed to the task force concept, I personally think the current
> > implementation of it is a joke.
> 
> In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea if the 
> advisory group
> responsible for the recent draft had prepared a more detailed 
> overview of
> its thinking. I certainly can't speak for the group, but 
> perhaps this will
> help peoplee understand the draft better.
> 
> A majority of the group's members (though not all) shared 
> your view that
> task forces were too important in the current policy-making 
> scheme. So there
> was a deliberate attempt to dilute their importance to the 
> process by making
> them boring. As you'll see in the draft, task forces 
> primarily exist to
> coordinate data gathering efforts. Mapping out policy 
> concerns and solutions
> has been pushed down, in the first instance, from task forces to the
> constituencies. Task forces assimilate the constituency 
> reports and the
> public comments and then package them for debate in the Council. (Also
> remember that in the Blueprint, additional GNSO 
> constituencies are expressly
> contemplated. We may well see an individuals constituency, a 
> small business
> constituency and/or an academic constituency.) In my view, 
> this is a step
> closer to "bottom up" policy development than in the status quo.
> 
> Read the draft again with that in mind, and I think you'll see some
> significant improvements.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the policy process was greatly 
> constrained by the
> Blueprint's requirement that it occur in "60 days or less." We simply
> couldn't do it and so recommended a process that will take 95 
> days or less.
> Personally, I'm hard pressed to devise a system that is more 
> bottom up that
> could take place on anything close to the Blueprint's tight schedule.
> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> 
> 
--
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