Re: [ga] Re: Complaint

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

  This sounds allot like another white whash or a not so good attempt
at gerrymandering of sorts.

babybows.com wrote:

> Sotiris has asked why the final report of the WG-review is mentioned nowhere
> in any of the official DNSO website references (that he considers the 15
> Jan. report to be a farce is another issue - personally, I consider the
> Jan.15 report to be valid and the NC Task Force report to be a farce).  To
> put it plainly, the Names Council officially decommissioned the WG-review
> some time ago and shut down its mailing list, and the most recent effort of
> the remaining members of WG-review (posted in the Public Comment Forum at
> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADB39BF00000043 )
> , can only be regarded as work-product from "other sources" (to quote Board
> resolution 01.28).  As the NC does not consider this to be official
> work-product, and as the Board does not consider this to be "official"
> work-product, and as we of the General Assembly have only limited control
> over what gets posted to the DNSO website, it is somewhat obvious that the
> final report of the WG-review would not be mentioned anywhere on the DNSO
> website.
>
> That, however, does not negate the stalwart efforts of this group, which has
> now been afforded the opportunity to go beyond their most recent
> recommendations.
>
> The unofficial WG-review recommended that the Board immediately begin
> seeking proposals for the implementation and self-organization of an
> Individual's Constituency, proposing that the Board issue notice that
> proposals for such a constituency may be submitted for consideration,
> thereby encouraging individual domain name holders to self-organize and
> submit proposals.
> Personally, I don't believe that those that seek to establish an
> Individuals' Constituency should need such "encouragement" by the Board.
> Either they act to become a viable constituency and pull themselves up by
> their own bootstraps, or they fail to demonstrate to the Board why having
> such a constituency is in the best interests of the Corporation.  Either
> way, the burden of proof, of legitimacy, is on their shoulders.
> The Board, at some point, may become receptive to the idea of an
> individuals' constituency.  But it is not enough to simply recommend to the
> Board that they become more enchanted with the concept.  Give them reasons.
> Give them a defined charter.  Give them a proposal that deals with the
> complexities of meeting funding requirements (especially at a time when
> other constituencies may soon find their votes to be in jeopardy).  Prove to
> them that such a body can truly be representative.    Use the ga-review list
> to marshal your arguments so that the GA may act to fully support a
> consensus resolution based on the merits.
> You seek to have "official" notice of your efforts?  Work in conjunction
> with the NC Committee tasked with setting the terms of reference for ongoing
> DNSO Review.  Collaborate.  Offer the work-product of a GA committee
> supported by a GA resolution.  You'll get more accomplished by working
> within the system than by working through mailing lists outside of the
> organization.
> Yes, there have been problems with NC reports... that much has been
> acknowledged by members of the Board in Melbourne.  This too will change for
> the better.   We have the opportunity to chart the way forward, to properly
> engage in the preparation of a draft document within the context of a
> research committee of the General Assembly.  Use this chance to come to a
> consensus-based conclusion that deals with issues such as the "criteria"
> that may affect the acceptance of a proposed constituency, that contends
> with the" procedures" necessary to obtain Board approval.
>
> There is much yet to be done.  It is not sufficient to merely state that an
> individuals' constituency is something wanted by the DNSO.  Many of us
> wanted a certain Option in the Versign contract discussions; we were
> overruled by a Board that did not consider our arguments to be sufficiently
> of merit.  Prove your case. Justify your positions.  Document the extent of
> your outreach in arriving at a conclusion, and couple that with a favorable
> vote by the NC and you might have a better chance of achieving your goals.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html