[wg-review] Re: DNSO Study
So, it comes down to this... instead of fairly representing two divergent
opinions regarding a possible future restructuring of the DNSO, you choose
to use the Review WG as a platform to promote only your own personal agenda
favoring the creation of an Individuals' Constituency. This is not the
even-handedness that I expected from the Chair of this group.
By stating that the *only* action you wish to see is the immediate
implementation of the IC, and by jumping to the conclusion that the Board
will most likely "ignore this" (which will then cause you to take recourse
in "sending the final WG proposal to a number of outspoken US Senators, and
the DoC, among others"), you are advancing a confrontational approach that
to my way of thinking is a disservice both to the DNSO and to ICANN.
Perhaps your recommendation would not be ignored if you chose to justify why
it serves the interests of the Corporation to create a separate Constituency
for individuals, other than merely stating that there is an "immediate need
for representation of Individuals within the DNSO". As everyone is at
liberty to participate in the activities of the General Assembly, and
whereas every such participant under the bylaws is entitled to bring an
issue regarding domain name policy to the attention of the NC, one could
well argue that there is already a vehicle in place which allows for the
representation of individuals in the DNSO.
You seek more than a "voice" for individuals; you seek to grant individuals
voting rights within the Names Council. As many of these individuals have
been regarded as part of a community that thrives on "bashing" ICANN,
perhaps you could elaborate on what would now prompt the ICANN Board to give
this new recommendation any more credence than any other prior resolution to
create such a constituency. What factors have changed that would warrant a
reconsideration of a proposal already many times advanced? There is a need
for many groups to participate in the DNSO; by what virtue does this group
have primacy over all others? A recommendation that does not address a
process by which *all* may come to have representation is not a
recommendation; it is a thinly veiled attempt at "capture" that must be
You have made it clear that you will not offer "improvements to the existing
operations", because "they can simply reject anything beyond that". Is this
how you choose to comply with a reasonable request from our Board? This
single-minded type of fanaticism is precisely what is wrong with a
constituency approach that does no more than advance adversarial "position
papers" that do not lend themselves to the true building of consensus. In
your mind, there is no room for compromise. It's all or nothing, or you
will scream to any legislative oversight committee that will listen.
Another matter... a straw poll question that purports to evaluate a
recommendation calling for the "dissolution" of the "DNSO" (which absolutely
no one has recommended -- Why would we eliminate our own Supporting
Organization?) is the most maliciously bogus attempt I have ever seen to
skew the results of a poll within a working group environment. If this is
an attempt to validate your "consensus", you have now totally lost all
You have accused the ICANN Board of "apparent 'efforts' at reforming along a
bottom-up mandate, without actually reforming." You have asked, "Why should
we willingly offer such legitimacy?" I, for one, do not view the Board as
an enemy. They have recognized the dysfunctional state of the DNSO (largely
as a result of the efforts of this Review WG), and have asked for
recommendations to restore the organization to a more functional state.
They are acting responsibly, and in the best interests of the Corporation.
I have been a critic of ICANN, but I am nonetheless a supporter of ICANN. I
will willingly offer legitimacy to the ICANN process because I believe in
that process. I regret that we are not of the same mind with respect to
This working group has given you the responsibility of drafting a final
report. I honor that choice and respect your position as Chair. It is
inevitable that in a group as large and diverse as ours there will be
disagreements. If as Chair you have determined that consensus has been
reached, and if you are in a position to validate such claims, then my
minority opinion will not thwart your conclusion. The report is yours to
write. My opinions have been put forth. We will await the final
recommendation of the Review Working Group.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html