Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study
For the first time, I find myself disagreeing with you...
> Dear Eric,
> For the first time I find myself disagreeing with you. We have all been
> participants in a bottoms-up process that has generated over 3000 comments
> regarding the problems of the DNSO; however, we have obtained only 250
> comments in the five weeks since the Board asked for suggestions regarding
In my estimation, Danny, that makes for a total of 3250 comments. I did not
limit myself to the commentary of the last five weeks as i studied the overall
significance of the last 4 months of WG Review. I invite *anyone* to compare
the proposal I have drafted, with the "RTF Report" which got the imprimatur of
my predecessor, and then tell us all which one is an accurate reflection of the
consensus in the WGr, as far as "recommendations" are concerned.
> Also, within a few days, this mailing list is being shut down
> by the decision of the Names Council. No matter how well-considered our
> suggestions, no matter how well-conceived and forthright, our
> recommendations alone cannot be viewed by the Board as a consensus
> conclusion, only as additional welcomed input.
I have not read any posts to the WGr which state as much (except yours, of
course). To be frank, I've had *many* encouraging emails offlist which leads me
to believe that I have, in fact, uncovered a consensus. I am willing to launch
a straw poll to ascertain this surmise.
> I would contend that the future potential restructuring of the DNSO requires
> a consensus verdict.
And your definition of this consensus mechanism/verdict is what exactly?
> As such my recommendation to create a Study might well
> forestall what very well could be an arbitrary upcoming decision on the part
> of the Board. A Study, if it is to be responsible, must obviously seek the
> type of input that a formal working group could provide. As Sotiris, Y.J.,
> Roberto, and myself, among others (including members of the Board) support
> the concept of working group input, and whereas all support the need for
> public input, I see no possibility of the Study Committee not taking
> advantage of that which bottoms-up can provide.
With all due respect Danny, I do not agree. I think we've seen plenty of
Committees *not* taking advantage of "that which bottom-up can provide". In
fact, I'd like for you to cite one example of such within ICANN to-date. I'm
sorry Danny, the track record just does not support what you're contending here.
> I have been involved in the Review WG long enough to understand the value of
> bottoms-up contributions (and I'm surprised to think that you would doubt my
> commitment to this process). I fully support the bottoms-up mechanism. I
> think that it is also important to understand that should such a study be
> commissioned, the ICANN Board would expect DNSO leadership to be involved in
> a process that may ultimately lead to structural changes.
I strongly disagree with this. When someone breaks the law, does the judge ask
for their input as to what the penalty should be? The BoDdid not issue
Resolutions 01.28 & 01.29 because they think the DNSO is functioning as it
> Perhaps my post
> was not sufficiently clear on the point that you have raised. I am more
> than willing to add comments proposing the establishment of a working group
> to address the need to find solutions.
What about solutions qua solutions? never mind addressing the *need* to find
> Please note that my suggestion was not put forward and signed as the Chair
> of the GA; I do reserve the right to post as Danny Younger, individual. I
> am also not acting in a fashion to "kill" a WG Review report.
Well Danny, you could not have given it a better shot *had* you wanted to, let
me tell you.
> I welcome the
> report, as apparently neither the NC nor the GA has acted to submit any
> recommendations in response to Board resolutions 01.28 & 01.29. I am proud
> of the work of this group and expect the Board to be appreciative of this
So what about the rest of the doublespeak then? Why didn't you raise any of
these issues 5 weeks ago?
> Would you agree that 5 weeks is too short, and that a fully budgeted study
> is called for?
No. Fully-budgeted means *appointed*, means not bottom-up!
> If you have thoughts on the composition of a Committee to
> direct the study, I am open to suggestions. Your suggestions may well be
> better than mine. Ultimately, it is not I that will decide, it is the
> Board. Eric, we are all trying to help.
Now you've got me wondering who it is we're all trying to *help* and how.
I am sticking by the current proposal. If anyone thinks that it's not an
accurate reflection of the general sentiments and comments of the last 4 months
of the WG Review, I would like to hear from them on a substantive basis, I want
to hear points and comments, not second-thoughts.
Working Chair, WG Review
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