[registrars] Re: Registrar Statement: What about an ability to state partial support?

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The problem with the Verisign settlement was the centralization of 
decision making/policy determination with the ICANN staff and board, not 
the GNSO. The only thing worse, in my opinion, than giving ICANN's staff 
a free hand to make policy, would be to give the registries a free hand 
to make policy. At least within the GNSO I have the opportunity to try 
and make a difference regarding what the policies should look like. I 
don't have the same opportunity when the staff or registries make these 
same decisions during settlement negotiations behind closed doors or in 
US courtrooms or in Washington D.C.
As far as expressing the diversity of views, anyone is free to submit 
their own comments as part of the public comment process. There is also 
the procedural requirement for the constituency to weigh in with a 
documented position. To the extent that CORE does not support the 
majority view, it is free to make their position known through the 
public comment and public forum processes.

Werner Staub (CORE) wrote:
> Ross,
>
> Many of us act under the impact of the offensive nature of
> the Verisign settlement. This may hide to many of us just how
> extremist the idea is to centralize policy-making across all
> TLDs in the hands of the GNSO.
>
> Now within the RC, we may find a solution the formal way with
> friendly or unfriendly amendments.
>
> But it might be good for the RC to offer a solution that
> lets registrars express minority views, if need be, and allows
> for the diversity of views. In this fashion, we still have a
> consensus document - as opposed to a majority view document.
>
> So, what about allowing a constituency member to support the
> document whilst stating that it does not support a given portion
> of the document?
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ross Rader wrote:
> > Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >
> > > Ross, I agree for the most part. But I don't think suggested amendments
> > > need to hold anything up. If the TF reps consider the amendment friedly
> > > it can simply be incorporated. If not, the unfriendly amendment can be
> > > included as an option in the vote.
> > Ahh yes. I completely forgot that there was a process for dealing with 
> > amendments. In this case, the body of the motion isn't the position 
> > statement. Robert's Rules would typically prevent an amendment from 
> > modifying the text of an attached document, in this case, the position 
> > statement. But I think it would be useful and appropriate to ignore 
> > this for the purpose of this vote (while avoiding setting any 
> > precedents). This is one of the reasons why its so important for each 
> > of us to make sure that we get involved in the comment periods as much 
> > as our busy schedules permit. The voting process isn't a great way of 
> > building consensus around a document - the rules are designed for 
> > forward movement, not compromise.
> > In any event your proposal sounds like a decent way forward under the 
> > conditions that I outlined above.

--

                       -rr








                "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                           All life is an experiment.
                            The more experiments you make the better."
                        - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Contact Info:
Ross Rader
Director, Research & Innovation
Tucows Inc.
c. 416.828.8783

Get Started? http://start.tucows.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org