Summary for New gTLDs Workshop at ICANN LA Meeting
I think we need to talk about the difference between meaningful participation and pointless participation. If our participation was being requested "prior" to a GNSO decision having been rendered on new gTLD recommendations, then our participation would be meaningful -- it would have some value in shaping the outcome of the decision-making process; offering up questions to workshop panelists after the GNSO has already formally ratified its recommendations is a pointless waste of time. It would make much more sense to direct our concerns straight to the ICANN Board so that it could decide to return the entire set of recommendations back to the GNSO for further work. We all aware of the fact that the GNSO Council in their final session on this topic gave public comments short shrift. While public comments were an agenda item at the Council session, and while ICANN Staff did their due diligence by offering up a 30-second summation of the comments received, it cannot be said that the Council reviewed, considered, or significantly debated the many concerns raised during the public comment period. As a result, we now have the end-product of a flawed process that has put forward a number of poorly considered recommendations. Recommendations #3, #6, #19, and #20 have met with considerable opposition, and certain of the "Principles" outlined therein don't comport with the views generally held by General Assembly participants. If the ALAC wishes to have any impact on the topic of new gTLD recommendations, it should communicate directly with the Board (as the GNSO Council is not prepared to listen and/or modify any of its conclusions on its own initiative). The GNSO Council considers this set of recommendations a "done deal" that is not amenable to any change. The workshop described by Denise is nothing more than a dog and pony show designed to trot out the GNSO's poorly-considered conclusions. Pose your questions instead to the Board. You have nothing to gain by interacting with the GNSO Councilors at this late date. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
Without commenting on Danny's specific comments, I will note that the GNSO has explicitly and strongly asked that Board members be present at the workshop so that they are aware of issues raised there (there is a GNSO meeting going on as I type this which has stressed the need for Board participation at this stage). Alan At 11/10/2007 10:04 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
I think we need to talk about the difference between meaningful participation and pointless participation.
If our participation was being requested "prior" to a GNSO decision having been rendered on new gTLD recommendations, then our participation would be meaningful -- it would have some value in shaping the outcome of the decision-making process; offering up questions to workshop panelists after the GNSO has already formally ratified its recommendations is a pointless waste of time.
It would make much more sense to direct our concerns straight to the ICANN Board so that it could decide to return the entire set of recommendations back to the GNSO for further work.
We all aware of the fact that the GNSO Council in their final session on this topic gave public comments short shrift. While public comments were an agenda item at the Council session, and while ICANN Staff did their due diligence by offering up a 30-second summation of the comments received, it cannot be said that the Council reviewed, considered, or significantly debated the many concerns raised during the public comment period.
As a result, we now have the end-product of a flawed process that has put forward a number of poorly considered recommendations. Recommendations #3, #6, #19, and #20 have met with considerable opposition, and certain of the "Principles" outlined therein don't comport with the views generally held by General Assembly participants.
If the ALAC wishes to have any impact on the topic of new gTLD recommendations, it should communicate directly with the Board (as the GNSO Council is not prepared to listen and/or modify any of its conclusions on its own initiative). The GNSO Council considers this set of recommendations a "done deal" that is not amenable to any change.
The workshop described by Denise is nothing more than a dog and pony show designed to trot out the GNSO's poorly-considered conclusions.
Pose your questions instead to the Board. You have nothing to gain by interacting with the GNSO Councilors at this late date.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Danny,
The workshop described by Denise is nothing more than a dog and pony show designed to trot out the GNSO's poorly-considered conclusions.
Has anything ICANN-related been anything but a dog and pony show ? How about the 136 unread messages I have waiting for me (not to mention the 1125 others) relating to this group to which nothing productive will come. Although, since I often disagree with myself, I have seen some positive outcomes by these shows. Denise has had as much positive contribution as anyone here. -rj A@L
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger -
RJGlass | America＠Large