Re: [wg-review] DNSO Study
you have once again written in a most calm, well researched and persuasive
manner. What you are proposing is taking all of the hard bottoms up work and
having the top redo it before even submitting it. You want to kill it, that is
how to do it. You want to hurt ICANN further this is how to do it.
The powers to be, DoC and all USG are looking for bottoms up transparency in
keeping with the white papers, not top down appointed boards meeting in private.
How could all those people you mention do a better job of what we did in
reflecting internetstakeholders desires.
I reread your post yet another time, you clearly are talking about all of you
guys meeting and changing our report before it gets submitted.
Absolutely NOT. Of course the decision should be up for a consensus discussion,
with our wonderful chair leading us we will do the right thing.
> Posted to the public forum:
> I thank the ICANN Board for the opportunity to provide input regarding ways
> by which we may come to improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted
> today, and further appreciate the opportunity to provide suggestions which
> may result in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in
> its functioning. Having been a participant in the Review Working Group, I
> am appreciative of the concerted effort that was made to respond to the
> Board's request for a general review of the DNSO, and I look forward to
> seeing the final report of this working group.
> My concern is that while ample time and resources were dedicated to the
> first phase of the review project (ten months to determine the diagnosis),
> limited time (5 weeks) has been allowed for the most important phase of the
> project (solutions). It is my humble opinion that a more comprehensive
> study is called for, as the possible restructuring of a Supporting
> Organization is not a matter to be taken lightly. To the same degree that
> the at-Large study required full and proper funding, as well as a
> blue-ribbon panel of committee members, so too should a study regarding the
> future of the DNSO be properly convened with ample resources, well-respected
> committee members and an appropriate timeline in which to complete its
> I propose the following: an initial committee consisting of the
> current and former chairs of the General Assembly, the current and former
> chairs of the Names Council, the chair of the Review Working Group, the NC
> Liaison to the Review Working Group, the Chair of the Review Task Force,
> ICANN legal counsel, and the Head of the DNSO Secretariat. This Committee
> shall act upon the findings of the review process and propose necessary
> The draft report of this committee shall then be submitted to an
> independent panel for rigorous review (by experts who are anonymous to the
> committee and which shall be selected by the ICANN Board). Upon conclusion
> of this review, the committee will then respond to the panel's
> recommendations with appropriate revisions, and finally submit a
> consensus-based report for public comment prior to submission to the ICANN
> Thank you for your consideration,
> Danny Younger
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html