A follow-up to Danny's comment
I share Danny's concerns. Both the BC and ISPC have been fictions since the Montevideo meeting, when they were combined because neither could fill a small room, and the findings published in Paris on the voting patters show that for the purposes of policy advocacy, neither exist as independent sources of policy advocacy, and simply triple the IPC's votes on the GNSO Council. The situation with the RC is awkward, so much so that I've suspended USAWebhost's membership in the RC. Transforming the mailing list from an open discussion to an executive-committee-announce-only venue was absurd, and moving all intra-registrar discussion to a non-public venue is simply going the wrong direction. I favor tossing the ICANN RC liaison and the press and the non-members out of the meetings for the hour or so that it takes to discuss political choices by the RC as a political actor (stakeholder) in competition with other political actors (the IPC and clones, the RyC, even ICANN staff), but there is little policy discussion that informs a vote on the RC's position on issues before the GNSO Council, and little of constituency officer candidate statements, or discussion by non-candidate constituency members, which actually merits members-only non-disclosure practices. Reform is required. Eric Brunner-Williams contract operator, USAWebhost, IANA ID 439 |