Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Philip et al,

It was once mentioned during this year's NC teleconference that
this unnecessary tug-of-war centering WG formation in the DNSO
which needs NC's blessing would be concluded upon WG-D's final
report.

And, we do have WG-D's final report submitted by Bret who has
been working hard to make it after one year and ten months or so.

Therefore, it would be more reasonable to present uniform approach
based upon WG-D recommendation by NC as a formal track rather
than improvisatory approach according to the issues.

For the last, the requirements put here to Danny and Milton before it is
presented to the NC sounds too much work - sounds like it could be
the report of such a WG, if it is to be formed. - for such a small group.

Please, remeber the fact that NC is supposed to facilitate the open
and bottom-up discussion rather than suffocating it in the DNSO.

This is my 2cents,
YJ

> I thought what I asked Danny to do was rather clear. It is certainly NOT a
> report.
>
> "description of the exact issue providing:
> a) background with names of the organisations concerned.
> b) an analysis of the issue arising as they may effect i) net
> users/consumers and ii) registries/ root owners.
> I will then table this for NC discussion in the first instance."
>
> The process:
> Step 1. First a description of the issue
> Step 2. then a NC discussion on the description/issue
> Step 3. then a NC decision on the best way to deal with the issue.
>
> By all means Milton work with Danny to produce a tight, elegant,
insightful,
> unbiased description of the issue for presentation to the NC.
>
> But lets not jump to one option for step3 today.
> Philip
>
>
>