[ncdnhc-discuss] Latest draft NC doc on reform

[Harold J. Feld]

As you can see none of the suggested wording I posted was adopted, 
although the independent review idea seems to have been included as a 
suggestion.

Part of the problem is that we do not have a consensus out of the NCC, 
whereas other constituencies do.  Of course, we also do not have the 
capability to generate consensus quickly via face2face meetings and 
conference calls, as other constituencies have.  Arguably, adcomcould 
take a greater role, but there has been resistance in the consticuency 
from Adcom acting unilaterally on a mere sense from the discussion 
group.  While more democratic, it does prove less efficient where 
consultation and reolution are necessary on a weekly basis.

again, I would urge the constituency to create a process NOW so that we 
can reach official consensus on a few points to submit.  I would argue 
critical points on which we might consider a constituency position are:

1) Role of governments and or the ITU.

2) Representation

3) Transparency

4) Accountability (the one aspect entirely lacking in any governing 
document I have seen.  Much talk of transparency, but nothing about 
accountability mechanisms).

As for changes proposed by other constituencies: the big push from the 
registry & registrar consticuencies is to include language that policy 
should be formulated by those "primarily affected."  Both constituencies 
have expressed concern that other constituencies (notably the ccTLD 
consticuency) have refused to adopt policies while insisting on playing 
a role (often a delaying role) in development.  BC and NCC have resisted 
this, since at least I see this as an exclusionary mechanism in which we 
could be excluded, or forced into a non-leadership role, in any 
significant policy dispute.

Harold Feld

KathrynKL at aol.com wrote:

> Harold:
> Wording is very important, particularly if the NCC's Names Council 
> members are going to be voting in favor of the document.   Could you 
> please share what changes from our NCC suggestions you were able to 
> get into the current NC document?  Could you share the major changes 
> that the other constituencies entered?
>
> thanks,
> kathy