Re: [ALSC-Forum] Some comments... - Omissions added...

[Jeff Williams]

Danny and all stakeholders or interested parties,  Omissions

  In part I support Dannys comments and observations as presented here
regarding the DNSO GA, the NC and the extent in which the DNSO
GA could bet some "Work" done.

  There are a few fundamental problems that the DNSO GA suffers from
however, that Danny did not mention here.  Here is a short list:

1.) The DNSO GA has "List Rules" that are not legitimate, and blocks
      participation, debate, and discussion in various ways. One of those
      "ways" is that a limit on the number of posts to the DNSO GA list
      is selectively imposed upon participants.  Another is the verbiage
      that some participants, such as myself, may use or is directed towards
      results in SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP.  This is a noticeable failure
      in communication within the DNSO GA.

2.) Willing and desirable would be participants have been BANNED
      permanently from active participation.

3.) A supposed or self imposed lack of funding for the DNSO GA.

  All of these are also well documented in the DNSO GA Archives for
your review.

  I must say though that none or these problems that Danny specifically
neglected to mention (See his comments below) cannot be overcome
or routed around in one fashion or another or eventually corrected
entirely.


DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Some comments regarding the last ALSC outreach meeting:
>
> Sometimes there is a danger in painting with too broad a brush... I have
> often heard the comment made (as I did the other evening) that the DNSO is
> dysfunctional (and that we don't seem to like each other very much).  While
> this is almost universally acknowledged as a truism, it unfortunately does a
> disservice to the one institution within the DNSO that seems to function
> well, the General Assembly.
>
> As the current Chair of the General Assembly I am admittedly biased, but I
> have noted that our voting registry has more than doubled in one year, while
> the membership rosters of most all other constituencies have remained fairly
> stagnant.
>
> To what can we attribute this growth?  Simply put, the General Assembly has
> become the home for substantive discussion of issues on the part of those
> that have no other form of access into the ICANN process.  We offer a venue
> for dialogue that no other constituency group offers... the registrars have
> an active list, but it is a closed list for registrars only.  The
> Non-Commercial Constituency has an active list, but many that seek recourse
> to the ICANN process are not non-commercial entities, they are individuals
> that are not allowed to participate on such a list.  The gTLD constituency
> offers no publicly archived list, neither does the Business Constituency, nor
> the Intellectual Property Constituency, nor the ISP constituency.  The
> General Assembly is the only truly open forum within ICANN.
>
> Our members may be described in many ways, but perhaps the most apt might be
> "transient".  When ICANN's relationship with the alternate root community was
> at issue, our membership swelled as those at odds with ICANN's position
> battled to have their voices heard.  In a ten-week period, over 950 comments
> were posted on the topic of "roots".  Then the issue subsided.  I note now
> that there has not been a single post to this "roots" mailing list since July
> 23rd.  Next we will probably be joined by the handsoffmy.org forces.  This
> fluidity in membership is what we ideally seek.  People should be able to
> participate in the ICANN process on a needs basis (that is, whenever an issue
> arises that warrants their attention).
>
> Yes, there are times when we are "captured" by those with an axe to grind or
> a cause to promote.  Nevertheless, I consider this to be healthy (as
> arguments become well-framed and discussion is vigorous).  So what if some
> choose to bash ICANN?!!  They are pointing out our mistakes.  We can all
> learn from this process and improve accordingly.
>
> Another salient point... we are open for business every day.  There is not an
> issue, a news item, or a policy statement or announcement that escapes our
> attention.  Collectively, we are on top of the issues, having delved into
> them in depth daily.  I wish the same could be said for our Names Council.
> Unfortunately, I cannot say much in favor of this council constituency
> approach, as it has proven itself repeatedly to be an abject failure.
>
> If the ALSC could recommend restructuring the DNSO by eliminating the Council
> completely, there would be many of us (including the supramajority of the
> former members of the Review Working Group -- the bulk of the active
> membership of the DNSO)  that would support such a decision.  We have shown a
> clear preference for a one-man/one-vote approach akin to that which Karl has
> outlined to this committee in his prior postings...  but above all, we would
> relish the chance to actually accomplish "work".
>
> This Council (our management) does not believe in "work", unless you consider
> meeting once every six weeks for only two hours "work".  Just review their
> mailing lists if you seek any further proof...
>
> What type of work is needed you might ask?  Domain Name policies if presented
> to the Board for evaluation must be supported by "a written report and
> supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to the
> Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the
> extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents
> the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the
> views of groups that are likely to be
> impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support
> and opposition to the proposed specification or policy."
>
> When was the last time that you have seen such a report submitted by the
> Council?  I can't recall even one within the last year.  Weren't there domain
> name issues that arose within the last twelve months?  Not so, if you must
> judge on the basis of Council output.
>
> I am saddened to see Councils represented in each of the options put forth so
> far by the ALSC.  The Council in the DNSO is the cause of our malaise.  It is
> a structure that has proven itself to be a failure.  It is an organization
> that stifles comments, kills working groups, and produces no decisions of any
> worth.  It is time to roll the constituencies back into the GA and terminate
> this worthless Council.  The GA can and will get the job done for ICANN.
> Free us from the shackles of the constraints now imposed by the ByLaws and
> you will see results immediately.
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208