DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[council] Re: Resolutions on reform

Let me answer your questions this way, and then unfortunately I am
traveling and cannot engage in an extended dialog today.

On your first point, I do not believe the relevant question is whether the
users have forced anything on the suppliers.  Under your view of policy
development, that cannot be done in any event.  The real question is "Has
the current structure demonstrated that it is effective in producing
consensus policies on issues of concern to the community?"  While I am sure
there might be some arguments about this, many people believe it has not so
demonstrated.  Thus, a search for structure that might be more effective.

On your second point, the conceptual rationale for the current ERC
recommendation is that, with both sides unable to simply force their way to
a majority (especially given the presence of the NomCom reps), there will
be more of an inclination to seek a consensus solution.  Of course, as in
today's environment, one side or the other could still simply refuse to
work toward consensus, but it will be more obvious to the rest of the world
that this is happening, and the views of the NomCom reps will be a neutral
guidepost to the real positions of the parties, however they characterize
them.  This is certainly not a guarantee of success; it may well be that
this system fails as well, and if so, yet some other solution may have to
be tried.  But at least this is an effort to adjust for the right reasons,
and with the right objective; alternatives proposed should meet the same
test, or in the alternative there needs to be some persuasive explanation
as to why the ERC's possible improvement is instead more likely to have a
negative impact.  So far, I have not seen either attempted.  Indeed, the
only positive impact on this subject came from those suggesting a separate
SO for providers, which the ERC believed would simply eliminate the
rationale for any SOs in this area and move all policy debates up to the
Board, which it thought not desirable.  On the other hand, as noted above,
the consensus on the Board was that the current system had not been
effective, and that lack of staff was not the only reason for that; this
perspective produced the current ERC alternative.  Although it is getting
rather late in the game, alternative ideas that seem more likely to produce
the desired result are always welcome.  In contrast, it is not that useful
to just say no.

Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

                    Sheppard"            To:     "Joe Sims" <jsims@jonesday.com>                                   
                    <philip.sheppard     cc:     "NC \(list\)" <council@dnso.org>                                  
                    @aim.be>             Subject:     Resolutions on reform                                        
                    09/27/02 08:08                                                                                 

as I understand it your sole objective is to create a better forum for
consensus decision making.

(Our objection to the current strategy to achieve this are based on a
possible scenario whereby suppliers may exploit the proposed voting
structure in ways that resist pro-competitive or other pro-public interest
change. You may characterise this as a potential side effect).

You have argued the status quo is flawed.  Does the status quo provide
examples of users forcing unreasonable demands on suppliers?  As users pay
the final bill, it is not in our interests to do so.

Also you have not explained why increasing the voting strength of suppliers
is more likely to produce true consensus. Users and suppliers will have
issues however one jiggles about with the votes.

I, and I believe, my fellow users, are open to hear this explanation.


The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

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