RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Ignoring the public, again
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Ignoring the public, again
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=OM/kSYtxx2AOCP97wgigUG3vLgOnCepQkfOzdEZgBWdL/yqgDmGPWGSn7IwOZRpnlA188GdwiffSKuOJgZKq+SOaHZnwJs9uvEJ6Py44dZoKqSk86+cCEjCJEGgV0BUQorF6APK6kBYjOOchtPHelw2qP7RbPGEniBa+hEAKzk0=;
- In-reply-to: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701F66142@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
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 tool.