ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Ignoring the public, again/Structure

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Ignoring the public, again/Structure
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:23:57 -0700 (PDT)

We are faced with the problem of having matters considered by the Council. 
Petitions if you please. A mere 3 decades ago virtually all Council meetings we 
held in public, in person.
  So we progressed with telephonics and faxes, all the way to now where 
Councilors can sit in their home office and fully attend.No good protocol to 
assure attention to petitions has been fully developed. But even in person the 
Councilor could sleep through a presentation or be reading other material. 
Today the problem is really not any more serious just more pronounced, with the 
speed we expect in anything we do. Instant gratification has no business, in 
governance, or in the governance of business.
  We cannot cure this problem, But we can try.
  Having a staff who's job it is to get all the material in front of each 
Councilor, as opposed to a staff who's job it is to present their own material. 
(the proper staff direction is critical) Longer periods between open and close 
of petition submission dates. Longer periods between public submissions and 
public deliberations. A rebuttal period. A cut off when everyone one can know 
exactly what is before the Council.
  Sorry, with todays' rates thats my two bucks worth.

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

a 90-second synopsis by Liz Williams does not
constitute a proper review of the public comments. 

I can accept the fact that your organization is
contractually obligated to serve as ICANN's
cheerleader and must necessarily endorse all of the
stupidities in the current ICANN process in order to
comply with your lawsuit settlement agreement -- but
that doesn't change the fact that the public comments
were given short shrift by the Council, just as the
earlier GA contribution to the new gTLD process was
virtually ignored by Council members.

Bottom line: In the eagerness to accomodate the pent
up demand for new gTLDs, the Council put forward a set
of recommendations that ran roughshod over the
consensus process. Rather than recognizing that there
was no true consensus on certain points (as
highlighted by the public comments and the comments of
certain constituency representatives), the Council
pretended that there was "rough consensus" and pushed
through a package over the strenuous objections of
certain parties. 

This is not how the consensus process is supposed to
work -- this is nothing more than an example of
tyranny of the majority. 

Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder 

Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

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