[ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad decisions

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

The GNSO new gTLDs PDP was launched quite some time
ago and has arrived at a number of horrible
recommendations.  Consider recommendation #19 that
would require all new gTLD registries to rely
exclusively on ICANN-accredited registrars.  Public
comments thus far have shown opposition from a chinese
registrar (BeijingIDC.com), from Michael Palage, from
Karl Auerbach, from Guanghao Li, from Milton Mueller,
and from Vittorio Bertola.  Beyond that, we now see
that the .museum proposed agreement also serves to
undermine the proposed recommendation.  Earlier, I
too, raised my concerns with the prospect of
anti-trust issues.  Finally, even the registries have
cited concerns with this recommendation -- see their
"Impact Statement" at
http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2007/2007-06-07-01.pdf

This leads one to ask:  If that many well-informed and
reasonable people are in opposition to a particular
GNSO recommendation, then how did the process allow
for this poor recommendation to be agreed upon by the
GNSO Councillors?  What is so fundamentally wrong with
GNSO mechanisms that results in bad decision-making? 
Logically, we should also be asking "How do we go
about correcting the problem?"

I'm told that the Board Governance Committee's Working
Group on GNSO Improvements will soon be meeting with
current and former GNSO Council Chairs prior to
issuing a new draft recommendation.  Let's hope that
this committee asks some of the hard questions lest
they arrive at nothing but cosmetic changes in their
new iteration of "GNSO improvements".


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7