Roberto, I never cease to be amazed by your ability to twist the plain meaning of words. As the bylaws spell out both the structure and powers of Advisory Committees, the key to formulating a properly functioning AC lies in the language selected to reside within the bylaws. A new advisory committee can be created with a narrow remit on registrant issues with the capability to produce stellar results. The degree to which such a new AC will be viewed as a "retarded sibling" will solely depend upon how the Board chooses to populate such a body and how the Board chooses to empower such an AC. Roberto, I am sure that you recall the almost total lack of policy discussions within the IDNO (which should remind you of the the current state of the EURALO). Some constituent efforts are not necessarily superior to that which may be accomplished within an AC environment (like within the SSAC). By the way, this does not need to be an either/or proposition. You will note that non-commercials orgs populate an AC and a GNSO constituency currently. best regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
If you really want to help shape DNS policy by way of articulating firm positions, then either find yourself a home in one of the GNSO constituencies, or act in concert with others to launch a new constituency (in view of the possibilities afforded in the "revised" GNSO). That's where the real work will be getting done.
Good. So you do agree on the fact that to create a Registrant Constituenct in the GNSO is a far better option than to create a Registrant Advisory Committee, that will be, in your own words, another "retarded sibling in the family that can only make suggestions to others as to the policy that should be followed"?
Cheers, Roberto
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ