RE: [council] Washington meeting: NCUC position
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Washington meeting: NCUC position
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:10:04 +1100
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcYjjC0sJSBnBihKQzSUuPKqVhtsYgB7091g
- Thread-topic: [council] Washington meeting: NCUC position
I thank you for effectively raising the concerns being expressed within
> 1/ Given this particular and sensitive issue of gTLD, which
> has been on and on for a good while, we have heard the same
> arguments for and against gTLDs for years, and what is most
> needed is not more comment, but decisions (at least on
> positions and recommendations, as far as the GNSO Council is
> concerned). The idea that we, the Council and our
> Constituencies, don't know what our position is, or need to
> hear more, does not convince none of my constituents.
> Instead, it is beleived that what we really need to do is to
> put our heads together and come up with a common and final position.
It does surprise me to hear that we should be limiting public input to
one mechanism - online comments to the website, especially when this has
not really been found to be adequate over the past several years.
It is also concerning that we should be saying that we don't want to
listen to people because we have already made up our minds.
> 2/ And to better achieve this, we need not to expose
> ourselves to further pressure and lobbying from interest
> groups, which my fellow constituents beleive is going to
> happen in D.C. In effect, we are concerned that opening this
> meeting in Washington to public comment turn this into
> lobbying meeting that will easily be dominated by Washington
> insiders who are far to reflect the variety of possible and
> existing positions on this sensitive issue of value to all of
> us, both as ICANN bodies and globally.
Remember that it is the Council that makes its recommendations to the
Board. This seems to be implying that you are concerned that Council
members are not sufficiently experienced to judge input based on its
merits rather than its source (ie inferring that the Council would
consider a comment made in Washington on a higher basis simply because
of the location where the comment was made).
The mere fact that this issue is of concern to members of the NCUC -
would imply that the NCUC Concil members will be vigilant to ensure that
all input is treated appropriately based on its merit rather than who
has submitted it or where it is submitted.
It seems however that in the Council teleconference we may need to
separate the decision on a public comment forum, from the core objective
which is to make progress on the policy work.
The decisions that need to be made seem to be in order:
(1) should we hold a physical meeting between now and Wellington to move
things forward on policy efficiently
(2) if so, where and when
(3) if we hold a physical meeting, should we offer the oppportunity for
oral public comments