Re: [gnso-contro-wg] rev 01. of the controversial names report

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I think i disagree on two points.

I do believe that as a multi-stakeholder organization, it is the job  
of ICANN to make sure that all stakeholders and others are indeed  
represented.  And while it is easy to argue that this is not  
currently the case, i think it is also easy to argue that it should  
be the case and that ICANN should always be striving to make this the  
case.  True, it is not the job of this WG->subgroup to make it happen  
but I think that was at least part of the point behind the LSE review  
and part of the work being done by the board (or at least i assume  
that is what the Board is doing) on council reform.

As far as the council or other representative/constituency based  
policy SOs being responsible for filtering  controversy disputes, i  
think that calling a name controversial is indeed a policy issue and  
hence is part of what the council, and other SOs are indeed paid the  
big bucks for. And the ACs are paid the big bucks for representing  
outside and other interests.  Making the ultimate recommendation is  
indeed still the province of the RSTEP-like process and ultimately  
the board if their decision is appealed.

At this point, I think you and I are supporting two contrary  
viewpoints and it would be good to see what some of the others on the  
list think.

thanks
a.



On 2 maj 2007, at 11.37, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> Getting to what gives a group or an individual 'standing' is indeed a
> challenge. That will be in the category of 'more work needed'.  
> However, not
> everyone is a member of a SO constituency, and I am not clear that  
> creating
> constituencies is the solution.
>
> Perhaps we need to think more about what makes up a 'controversy'  
> and then
> address how other entities would get 'standing'. But I also don't  
> want to
> put the GNSO Council into the middle of making the determination. That
> doesn't sound like what councilors are elected to do. :-)