I agree with the comments on
the substantive issues (3-6) provided by the NCDNHC. I would amplify, if that could
be possible, their procedural comment concerning how the ICANN staff have undermined
the DNSO by proceeding in negotiations over the terms of an agreement so at odds
with what could have been expected as simple contract renewal terms that the staff
usurped the policy-making authority/responsibility of the DNSO. This error in judgment
strikes me as being just as serious as the troubling terms of the proposed
agreements. One need no longer wonder when the day will arrive that it will
be as important to persuade "staff," as it is an ICANN BOARD MEMBER, of various policy
matters; TODAY IS THAT DAY.One final point. I would not agree with the NCDNHC
that agreements should be supported regardless of how we have arrived at this point.
There may be good points that come out of the contract negotiations process - - I
certainly believe that some of the proposed changes might be good, particularly those
concerning the use of three distinct contracts covering each TLD separately - - but
that should NOT excuse the fact that the subject matter of the negotiations went
far afield from that which the staff should have recognized to be the responsiblity
of ICANN's bottom-up policy-making process within the DNSO. As a lawyer who
has been frequently engaged in issues of due process, I have come to have no doubt
that process DOES matter. - Rod Dixon
|
|
|