Re: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

The following message did not appear on the GA list.
Could I ask the DNSO Secretariat to advise, please?

From: Cindy Merry <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>
To: GA <owner-ga@dnso.org>
Cc: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>; Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:05:35 -0700
Subject: Re: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list 

Hi Patrick:

I have responded below to some of your questions but would like to first
comment about this thread which suddenly appeared in my GA e-mail.  I had
to go to the GA DNSO REVIEW archives to figure out what this was about.
Since I do not subscribe to the GA DNSO Review I will respond to the list
that I subscribe to however feel free to also post it to the GA DNSO Review
list.

I feel that within the 'terms of reference' for the GA DNSO REVIEW list,
Joanna added a very helpful and meaningful link for information.  For the
GA DNSO REVIEW list to be effective, it would appear that using the
information, the report, and the work done by the WG-Review would be
appropriate.  Perhaps her intention was also to point out the amount of
work that had been done in this area and what it actually accomplished.  I
am sure the GA could utilize the WG Review information.  And it always
seemed to me that more could have been developed out of the WG Review if it
had had a longer time period to function.

The questions below appear to disregard using the WG Review information as
background research and building blocks for the GA DNSO Review and focus
more on a concern with a group that no longer exists.  Hopefully those
participating in the GA DNSO Review will take the opportunity to read all
of the 3,328 comments.  They provide great research and a variety of
excellent information on structuring, consensus, equal but opposing
viewpoints, representation, ICANN, Domain Name Holders vs. Owners, Internet
Freedom, Business interests, individuals, constituencies, communication,
education, etc.

On Friday, June 08, 2001 1:49 PM Patrick Corliss wrote:
Subject:  [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

>As you know I was not a member of WG-Review but it is clear to me that
there are very few subscribers currently.  I believe that another list >was
set up elsewhere and this was done because of friction between the members.
Of course I was not involved.  I have no idea of the >current status of the
"review" or whether the matter should be progressed.

There cannot be any subscribers to the WG-Review as it was shut down at a
time designated by the Council.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg03328.html   The list was
shut down because it was only established to exist for a certain length of
time by DNSO/ICANN.  The participants had no choice on continuing the WG
Review.  Some of those participants chose to create another mailing list
because they felt they had more to contribute.  Others, like me, were not
interested in participating in a mailing list that had no "official"
purpose or standing.  However the work done by the WG Review was important
and should be used and included in any discussions about the DNSO/ICANN.

(Two paragraphs deleted that didn't appear to have anything to do with the
WG-Review)

>Could you please, therefore clarify the position for me in clear and
unequivocal terms?  Can you advise what were the terms of reference for
>the WG-REVIEW?  To what extent did it complete its task when it was closed
down by the Names Council?  Was any further work performed >outside this
forum and, if so, with what result?  Is there a "due" date for completion?

The point is that the work done by the WG Review is available for use
within the GA DNSO REVIEW.  I have placed the terms of reference for the
WG-Review at the end of this message.  The report that was submitted is
available for you to read in the archives - in fact there are several
excellent reports beyond the one finally sent by the Council.  There was
plenty more that could have been done in finding a better way for the
DNSO/ICANN to function and be more inclusive and I assume that is why there
is a GA DNSO Review.  If you're interested in finding out about the group
who created their own mailing list after the WG Review you'll probably have
to ask them about their on-going discussions, results, whether they have
some type of due date, etc.  (I believe that Jefsey, Danny, Eric, and
others might still have the subscribe information.)  However, if your
interest is inviting all of the participants from the WG Review to join in
on the GA DNSO Review discussion, that seems like a great idea.  The
original group that subscribed responded to an ICANN announce list.

>I am particularly interested in two fundamental issues:

>(1)  Viability of the List.  Why have the 100 or so members of the
origibal WG-REVIEW not joined this GA-REVIEW mailing list?  Is it because
>the work is completed?  Are they likely to sign up anytime soon?  In other
words, will the list be useful? and viable?

The viability of the list is no longer pertinent as it doesn't exist.  The
point is to use the work done by the WG Review to help the GA DNSO REVIEW.
In my opinion the objective was not completed.  A starting and ending time
was established for the work group and there was no agreement from the
Council to keep the work group active although most participants hoped they
would do so.  At times I suspect that there never was an intention by DNSO/
ICANN to use the WG Review for improvement; it just satisfied certain
political and public relation needs.  There were far more than a 100
participants in the original WG-Review - and I think it's a great idea to
ask them to join the GA DNSO Review.  Their contributions and experience
would be valuable.  I have also seen many of their names of the GA list.
Have those who participated in the WG Review been invited to join the GA
DNSO Review?  Can we explain how the GA DNSO Review will be used and what
it can accomplish?

That leads me to the question:  Why don't I subscribe to the GA DNSO
Review?  After some thought I'd have to say I don't believe that the
existing structure will allow anything that the GA DNSO Review comes up
with to be implemented or used.  Further I am not comfortable with the
often personal nature of the e-mails within this forum.  (Although by
sending this message I realize I am opening myself up to receiving a
variety of e-mails that will, most likely, focus on anything but the point
of using the WG Review's work and continuing the progress that was made
along with providing outreach to those participants.)

>(2)   Boundary or Scope.  I'll use that term for now -- I may think of a
better one later.  What I need to know is to what extent the lists overlap.
>If the principal objective of the Review is looking at the structure of
the DNSO then wider issues, such as Supporting Organisations, are >outside
its scope.  We need to establish these boundaries very precisely.

I guess I don't understand these questions?  Which review - WG or GA DNSO?
The lists cannot overlap as the WG Review list no longer exists - however
as I've said there appears to be several WG Review participants who are on
the GA list but certainly not all of them.  What does outside its scope
mean?  Isn't the DNSO a Supporting Organization of ICANN?  It appears to me
that any discussion about the DNSO naturally moves into the entire ICANN
organization, including outreach, membership, organizations outside ICANN,
the GA, representation, defining the process, and more.  In fact this did
occur within the WG Review and was quite enlightening and helpful in
reaching some consensus.  Based on the GA DNSO Review's stated objective
below, I can't see how boundaries could be established within this thread.
Perhaps for the sake of clear communication there would be more mailing
list groups created under the GA DNSO Review that would focus on even more
specific topics.  However by keeping all of these dialogues off the GA list
we may be limiting the number of participants who might follow the
discussions and eventually participate.

Below I have pasted a partial 'terms of reference' for the WG Review (with
links) and I have pasted the GA DNSO Review Objectives (with link).  Once
again I suggest  we use the work done by the WG Review to help the GA DNSO
REVIEW.

Cindy

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00002.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00098.html
Objectives of the DNSO Review Working Group

The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
the performance of ICANN's DNSO and to propose structural
and procedural changes that will help ICANN's Domain Name
Supporting Organization fulfill its mission of becoming a bottom-up
policy coordination body.

The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
the responses of DNSO stakeholders' and to vindicate that DNSO
would be a structure that will include all of those who will be affected
by the DNS of the future as well as the current Netizens.


http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/msg00001.html
DNSO REVIEW
Ongoing DNSO review:  To consider and recommend proposals that improve
operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may
result
in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its
functioning.


Best regards
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair, DNSO GA


--
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