Re: [ga] Drafting Teams

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik, Avri and all,

  I concur with Dominiks thoughts and concerns here.  Registrants
being under or not at all represented are the ones effected most
and whos positions are considered least with respect to registrant
and registration, domain name and domain name related issues
and/or concerns.

Dominik Filipp wrote:

> Avri,
>
> the problem does not lie in establishing a Drafting Team and subsequent
> working groups with broader public participation but the way how the
> public input is being constantly ignored by the GNSO Council. We do have
> the straw poll results we do have suggestions from the mailing lists and
> other involved organizations putting outstanding efforts in providing
> some evidence. Many of them have delivered solid analyzes of the problem
> or at least have raised essential questions that have never been
> answered. All this, however, does not prevent the Council, during its
> meetings, from not even mentioning most of them.
>
> The mostly supported suggestion resonating in the public comments -
> elimination of the AGP - has never been seriously considered during last
> Council meetings, at least in the transcripts published on the Internet.
> Instead, a $0.20 fee suggestion was unanimously approved for the Board
> staff recommendation in order to be, in a next minute, immediately
> replaced with a NeuStar-like approach. What a masquerade! Again without
> any solid-based analysis or evidence provided. One ad-hoc solution
> replaced by another ad-hoc one. Jeff Neuman from NeuStar has brightly
> revealed this lack of competence when depicting all that familiar
> emotional speech "I feel", "I don't feel", "I'd like", "I'm a bit
> concerned" of few like-minded individuals instead of providing,
> considering, and elaborating on real facts.
>
> Instead, the meeting discussions have almost degenerated to a bargaining
> on various Registrar desires regarding increasing the AGP deletion cap
> to 5%, 8%, or 10% and how to preserve maximum profit out of it. Ah, and
> I have almost forgotten to mention eNom's tacit desire to have the cap
> of at least 100%. It is really impressive how the Council is prompt all
> ears to such Registrar desires and in case of a problem I often read in
> the transcripts "we have to ask Registrars for further clarification of
> their concerns". But where are the legitimate Registrant needs in all
> this, Avri? Keep in mind that the Domain Tasting issue has been
> initiated and opened due to strong Registrant/User appeals and not to
> those of Registrars. Registrars themselves could comfortably and
> profitably live with the tasting practice as long as the Registrant/User
> community would accept it.
>
> Such demonstrated GNSO Council's marginalization of public input is
> simply unacceptable in future. I welcome the upcoming deliberation
> process on the issue that could result in opening related working
> groups. But the public voice of those whom the final decision/solution
> is targeted must strongly be heard also during voting on particular
> steps. Without this the GNSO mission will fail and as such will have to
> be reformed. Reformed dramatically.
>
> Dominik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:03 PM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ga] Drafting Teams
>
> To the GA list,
>
> I am just catching up on the GA list after the week's meetings and will
> respond to those messages that I think were directed to me for which I
> think I have a reply.
>
> In terms of Drafting Teams (DT - sometime called design team by
> mistake), they are not a circumvention of the PDP, but are being used as
> part of the deliberation process for which the GNSO council is
> responsible and which is mandated in the by-laws. They are intended to
> get the discussion in the GNSO council started by putting suggested text
> on the table. In this case the drafting team was set up to develop a
> suggested plan for how the deliberations in council should proceed. One
> possibility that the council had considered was that the DT would
> suggest a charter for an open working group.
> Instead the Domain Name Tasting PDP DT decided to suggest a motion.
> Which was also a acceptable suggestion - the council could deliberate on
> the motion and then vote.  Or it could reject the suggestion and do
> something else.
>
> In this case the GNSO council has asked the DT to reconsider its
> suggestion at another meeting.  It is possible that they will still
> suggest a motion, I don't know, but I expect more constituency members
> will be present at this meeting and the outcome may be different.
>
> As with all GNSO efforts, the DT should have an archived mailing list
> open for all to read. My preference is to keep the DTs small and to
> restrict them to constituency members so that they can produce a
> suggestion or a draft within several weeks at most. They are not mean to
> be the open working groups that allow everyone to come and deliberate a
> policy, but are meant for framing a starting point to the discussion. I
> think both DTs and WGs have a critical role to play in the GNSO
> council's work. I believe that over the next few months we will be
> creating lots of open Working Groups and there will be many
> opportunities for GA list members as well as others in the community to
> participate in orderly discourse and dialogue. As the GNSO improvements
> indicate, open working groups are the way the GNSO will work in the
> future.
>
> I am basing the GNSO Drafting Team on the IETF model of a Design Team.
> In the IETF, as I understand it, the Design Teams are kept small and
> while they can produce a suggestion or a draft, their suggestion/draft
> is no more important then any other suggestion/draft someone puts on the
> table. Likewise with the DT - it is something that the GSNO council will
> consider as part of its deliberations, but it does not mandate the
> behavior of the GSNO council except that the GNSO council must give it
> due consideration.
>
> Thanks for giving me the chance to explain.
>
> a.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827