Re: [ga] How did we get into this new gTLD mess?

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

Danny and all,

  Finally you have come around to our members way of thinking!
Truly amazing after all these years!

  The GNSO like it's predecessor the DNSO, was never legitimate
simply due to poor process.  It remains so.  So yes, the GNSO
needs, and has lone needed significant revamping and rehabilitation,
as do all of the SO's.  Bad or poor process almost always results in
bad or poor product.


Danny Younger wrote:

> It's a rare day that I decide to focus upon process, but process was the root 
> cause of the GNSO's poor decision-making that led to the sorely deficient 
> Applicant Guidebook.
>
> I recall the GNSO's Washington session chaired by Bruce Tonkin at which the 
> position was taken that least-common-denominator agreement constituted 
> consensus.  This meant that if Business had a concern that wasn't shared by 
> other parties, that concern was shoved to the sidelines in pursuit of those 
> areas upon which all other parties had sufficient agreement.  Similarly, if 
> Intellectual Property concerns were raised that weren't shared by all in the 
> room, then these too were set aside.
>
> This approach was a fundamental deviation from the consensus standard that 
> has guided ICANN since its inception.
>
> In the article "Why Consensus Matters", Susan Crawford defined the nature of 
> consensus as follows:
>
> "The consensus standard calls on all parties to suggest changes that, while 
> not perhaps optimal, will persuade others not to oppose. It is a standard 
> based on the ideal of cooperation (looking for the high ground, not the 
> lowest common denominator that can marshal a majority) on which the net was 
> built."
>
> We are in a mess with the new gTLD plans precisely because we failed to act 
> in keeping with consensus principles.  The basic premise is simple: if 
> intense opposition is absent or irrational or limited to those who do not 
> bear the impact of the policy in question, then a policy may go forward on a 
> consensus basis, otherwise, legitimate opposition and concerns must be taken 
> into account -- they cannot be trampled upon in the pursuit of a 
> least-common-denominator approach.
>
> In view of the public comments tendered, we should have the GNSO go back to 
> the drawing board and begin anew with a process that respects our consensus 
> traditions.
>
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"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