Out of Scope

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

A short note:

I was extremely disconcerted by this particular PDP.

 From the outset the Registry Constituency relentlessly
voiced their strenuous opposition and I kept wondering
throughout the entire process whether anyone other
than the Registry constituency still grasped the
concept of "consensus".

I have come to conclude that the ICANN non-registry
GNSO community no longer understands the fundamentals
of governance by consensus, and instead now acts to
pervert our founding consensus process by seeking to
unilaterally impose their will upon the registries
through the vehicle of recommendations that they hope
the Board will consider when acting to renegotiate
registry contracts.  

In this context, the non-registry GNSO constituencies
are acting collectively as an advisor to one single
party (ICANN) in a two-party contract over the
opposition of the second party, an action that in my
view is fully outside the scope of their chartered
activities. 
 
Frankly, the ICANN General Counsel should have stepped
in with a definitive ruling as to whether the GNSO
activities were in or out of scope.  Instead, we
wasted over a year in pursuit of this folly.

We are looking at a major problem here... if the bulk
of the GNSO constituencies no longer understand the
fundamentals of the "consensus policy process" (a
governance principle that asks each supplier whether
they will agree contractually to implement and abide
by a future rule, sight unseen, provided that most
people support it and that those parties substantially
affected by the policy do not vigorously or
unreasonably oppose it), then ICANN's legitimacy as a
rule-maker is once more thrown into question.




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news