[ga] Re: [ga-roots] MOTION - Consensus-Based Policy on Alt Roots

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

Patrick and all,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:29 PM (AEST), William X. Walsh wrote:
> > Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 8:28:45 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > > Perhaps you could re-read the proposal.  It is AGAINST alt roots.  I
> cannot
> > > see how ICANN should not wish to foster compliance !!!!!!
> >
> > Oh please.  It is carefully worded in order to foster a future action
> > to try and justify recognition of work in alternative roots.
> >
> > To claim your motion is against alternative roots is disingenuous,
> > Patrick, not to mention dishonest.
>
> LOL.  I should have known that I couldn't fool you, William !!!
>
> The motion is clearly designed to be a consensus-based policy.  As such it
> caters to the "unique root" lobby by recognising RFC 1591.  At the same time
> it suggests that ICANN should "foster compliance" with that policy.

  ARe you saying that RFC1591 IS policy?  I thought RFC 1591 was
a "Request for comments" nothing more or less...

>  That
> could mean that ICANN **might** engage in constructive dialogue to solve the
> problem.  On the other hand, it leaves enough room for ICANN to a truck
> through.

  And with the idea of "Trucking Through", as you put it is not a good
idea.
Good policy should be specific, comprehensive ot meet the perceived
need "Consensus", and yet address the issue(s) to which it pertains
too.  Your motion does not do these things very well in your own words
Patrick.  Possibly you are a "Newby" to policy formation?

>
>
> It's a very *iffy* proposal but I see it as the only one that stands a
> chance of getting adopted on a consensus basis.

  I don't see it as having any chance at all in the language in which
you put
it in.

>  But you turn your head away
> from even the tiniest glimmer of light at the end of the long, dark tunnel.

  Maybe WXW does and maybe he doesn't.  In this case however
with you motion, this "Glimmer of light" seems to be train coming
through a
tunnel straight for us.  That usually results in a train wreck...

>
>
> > No motion is needed.  No policy is needed.  Privately run root systems
> > are not within ICANN's mandate, and have no relevance to the ICANN
> > process.
>
> Most people seem to think that there should be a policy.

  Yes indeed there should be.  Your motion is not it however.

>  You have taken the
> most negative approach by saying that no policy is needed.  It is equally a
> distortion to say they are "privately run" root systems when they are on the
> internet.

  Agreed here!

>
>
> This list has been set up to try to develop a consensus-based policy.  Once
> you have said "no policy is needed" that's the end of your contribution.

  True.

>
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> PS I'll count my posts before saying "yes policy" to your next "no policy"
> !!
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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