DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion

I am really trying to not appear so confrontational, however, it seems that these
WG processes here are lacking some commonsense sometimes.

First, the WG comment record is not clear to me regarding why the majority of
voters appear to want to abandon the constituency structures.

It would seem that the WG process would be considered significantly unfair and
biased against contributing participants and counterproductive to the advancement
of the WG if any of the 25 voters were representatives of ICANN/NC or
representatives of any other ICANN policy making body.

As I understand it, the ICANN policy making bodies requested WG input for ICANN
policy making considerations.  Those who have the responsibility to judge the
product of a WG should not cast votes from within the WG to secure the direction
of the WG.  This certainly would not be in the spirit or intent of the WG process
and it would not be fair to the WG contributing participants..

I do not see anything wrong with ICANN/NC or ICANN representatives contributing
their comments to the WG debate process,  however, ICANN/NC or representatives of
any other ICANN policy making body should not vote within the WG process to
secure its direction.

If the WG is going to use votes for its direction, voters should be identified so
that WG contributing participants know that the votes and voters are legitimate.

Derek Conant

Greg Burton wrote:

> At 01:25 PM 1/26/01, Derek Conant wrote:
> >Question:  I wonder why the majority of voters appear to want to abandon the
> >constituency structure?
> We've had over 250 posts to the WG on this topic - perhaps you might want
> to review them :)
> >Question:  Who are the 25 voters?
> >Question:  Are any of the 25 voters representatives of ICANN/NC or any other
> >ICANN policy making body?
> I don't know, and don't care. What matters is that they are members of this
> WG, have a right to participate, and have done so.
> I find it curious - understandable, but still curious - that there has been
> any focus or question about whether or not NC members should be
> participating in the discussion here. By all means, examine what they write
> and how they respond, it will help you to understand them, but to question
> their participation seems counterproductive to an inclusive process. On the
> one hand, there seems to be concern that the NC aren't taking the WG
> seriously - on the other, concerns expressed when they participate. It
> seems to me it would be rather hard to take the WG seriously and also not
> participate, but perhaps I'm just an idealist.
> Regards,
> Greg
> sidna@feedwriter.com

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>