Re: [ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear!
you just confort my point: a lot of good will, non coordinated with the 
Chair (or ther Directors in the Danny/Derek proposition) would result in a 
lot of mails ... Sorry I forgot all the mails to repeat part of the 
preceding mails. :-)
Have agood mrning you on the other side of the world!
Jefsey

PS. I do not why there would be any crackpot scheme what ever it may mean 
because I say you tried in the best you could a silly scheme about these 
now forgotten articial sub-lists.  :-)

8n 17:24 14/06/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:25:14 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > you propose us 7 or 9 "Patrick Corlisses", i.e. good will people trying to
> > make enforced an agenda without coordination nor consensus.
>
>Hi Jefsey
>
>Thank you for attributing me with good will.  However the following words
>suggest some crackpot scheme of my own.  In fact, as you well know, I have
>tried very hard to seek consensus.  In the process I have written hundreds
>of emails to you alone -- more than anybody else on this list !!
>
>Here's just one comment I made to you on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:02:21 +1000
>when I wrote:
>
> > My "agenda" as you call it is to be altruistic, helpful, honest and
> > hard-working.  Nobody spends more time trying to build consensus
> > (writing long letters to people like you, for example) than I do.  I
> > could go on but I feel it's a waste of time . . .
>
>That was almost two months ago, Jefsey.  What have I said publicly?
>
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:34:32 +1100
> > I do not want to make that particular case at the moment (for or against)
> > but would like to draw out some aspects for consideration by the list.
>
>On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 07:35:15 +10001
> > It is my nature to seek consensus and that's why I'm proposing peace
> > between ICANN and the alternative community.  It's also why I'm proposing
> > a peaceful resolution of colliding TLDs.  It's because I'm in favour of
> > democracy, participation and more that I am proposing a fairer
> > constituency structure
>
>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:34:12 +1000
> > I would ask that those of us who support Joanna's attempt to capture
> > members' concerns in this short period endorse her letter and/or add
> > their signature.
>
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:19:57 +1000
> > Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for volunteers to act as List
> > Monitor.
>
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:13:46 +1000
> > Of course, all of us -- and I include myself -- are tempted to respond
> > with personal characterisations. However, we must all resist the
> > temptation if we wish the General Assembly to be considered an
> > appropriate forum for serious debate.
>
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:00:01 +1000
> >  Since I have been Co-Chair I have said very little in support of
> > "alternative roots" except that I agreed with Danny that there should
> > be a separate mailing list.  I gave simple reasons without any emotive
> > argument.
>
>On Wed, 2 May 2001 02:09:09 +1000
> > I'd suggest, therefore, that this issue is one that relates to the
> > competitive position of local commerce and industry.  It is interesting,
> > topical and relevant.  I would appreciate any feedback that members can
> > provide in understanding this technology and/or its implications for the
> > promotion of TLDs other than .com.
>
>On Thu, 3 May 2001 14:35:41 +1000
> > Given that there will, at least, be confusion, would you be kind enough to
> > specify why ICANN should not have a policy?  It is not sufficient to say
> > "the root systems are independent".  So are countries but they have
> > international agreements.
>
>On Thu, 3 May 2001 15:32:06 +1000
> > The real question is whether ICANN should have a policy?  What should
> > it be?
>
>On Fri, 4 May 2001 04:36:54 +1000
> > My point, which has in fact been made elsewhere, was to ask members of
> > this list whether there were any *policy concerns* about the contracts.
> > If so, it might be appropriate for us to convey those concerns to members
> > of the ICANN Board.
>
>On Sun, 6 May 2001 00:32:20 +1000
> > As the role of the DNSO General Assembly is to provide consensus-based
> > policy input to ICANN, what should that consensus-based policy be?
>
>On Sun, 6 May 2001 21:32:37 +1000
> > I think most people will agree with the truth of your observations below.
> > What we need to do now, it seems to me, is move on from saying "Yes, there
> > is a problem" to working out whether on not ICANN should have a policy
> > and, if so, what it should be.
>. . .
> > Given your stated views, do you see any merit in such an approach?
>
>On Sun, 6 May 2001 22:40:34 +1000
> > I'm sure you agree that ICANN should adopt compliance with the relevant
> > standards as a general principle.  And to encourage co-operation and
> > compliance within the industry is hardly a radical notion.
>
>On Sun, 6 May 2001 23:40:13 +1000
> > Anyway, can you think of an amendment to soften the implication?
>
>On Wed, 9 May 2001 15:23:24 +1000
> > 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.  But you turn your head
> > away from even the tiniest glimmer of light at the end of the long, dark
> > tunnel.
>
>On Thu, 10 May 2001 00:58:13 +1000
> > My intention was to formulate a consensus motion more-or-less acceptable
> > to both groups.  I don't think tht your motion even pretends to do that.
> > You are therefore forcing a division instead of a consensus.  Which
> > suggests to me that we will end up with two opposing motions which can
> > then be put to the vote.
>
>On Thu, 10 May 2001 02:33:38 +1000
> > There MAY BE a possible consensus motion.  Meanwhile we will treat it as
> > two opposing motions both of which might need work.  If they can be merged
> > later that will be good.  If not we will put them to the vote as "opposing
> > motions".  Vote one or the other.
>
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 21:44:57 +1000, I wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 May 2001 21:07:35 +1000, Dassa wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should be discussing if ICANN needs to adopt a policy to deal
> > > with other root zones?  If so, what that policy should be.
> >
> > Thank you, Dassa, from the bottom of my heart.  Have you any idea how
> > often I've said exactly that on this list?
>
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 05:00:17 +1000
> > The proposed policy that has been moved and seconded is very clear.  You
> > have indicated that you understand it.  All of the persons posting have
> > explained their positions.  These can be summarised as follows:
> >
> > (1) <snip>
> >
> > (4)    ICANN has no policy on so-called "alternate root systems".   The
> > mandate of the DNSO is to provide such a policy.  This should be based on
> > consensus according to the by-laws.
>
>On Wed, 16 May 2001 00:04:47 +1000
> > In fact, I am pleased to see that your latest response, which addresses
> > the propositions individually, does advance the debate adequately.  I
> > thank you for your efforts.
>
>On Sat, 19 May 2001 02:01:51 +1000
> > Article 3(iii) requires ICANN to develop policies for determining the
> > circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root
> > system.  Should anyone know of such policies, I would appreciate a pointer
> > to where they might be located.
>
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 15:32:27 +1000
> > I welcome any constructive suggestions ;-)
>
>On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:14:31 +1000
> > I'd agree with the following comment made to me privately:
>. . .
> > What do you think ?
>
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
> > The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
> > discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly
> > William X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views
> > which I'd like to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people
> > have a genuine interest in such a discussion.
>
>On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 02:45:43 +1000
> > I'd like, if we can, to work our way through Stuart's paper.  Like it or
> > not, it is the principal statement on the table and needs to be addressed
> > properly.
>
>On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:36 +1000
> > Good idea.  Let's work on a dictionary of terms to be put on FAQ
> > ("frequently asked questions") on the DNSO website.  We can then
> > reasonably expect people not to explain such terms.
>
>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:38:03 +1000
> > Hard to tell, from the quote, who agrees with Karl and who doesn't.  My
> > understanding, from previous list discussions, is that most people in the
> > alt.root community agree with Karl's paper on Multiple Roots.  I'd ask
> > anyone who doesn't to raise their hands.
>
>On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 02:26:45 +1000
> > But I'd like to see some genuine policy outcome on this list.
>
>On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 06:49:15 +1000
> > (1)  Viability of the List.  Why have the 100 or so members of the
> > original 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?
>
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:02:30 +1000
> > Thank you very much for your most welcome explanation of the work of the
> > WG-REVIEW.  You have clearly gone to a lot of trouble which I am certain
> > will be most appreciated by those of this GA list who were not involved
> > themselves.
>  . . .
> > Personally I think seven sublists is too many.  I would value input from
> > the list members in relation to how the see the system working most
> > effectively.
>
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:29:11 +1000
> > I have asked almost all of the people nominated below, both privately and
> > onlist, if they would volunteer their services as a sub-group Chair.  From
> > memory, one person ignored the request and the others declined.  I do not
> > expect a significant turnaround.
>  . . .
> > My view is that we need a bit less top-down and a bit more bottom-up !!
>
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:06:19 +1000
> > I think there's a general consensus that the idea is over-played
> > particularly when we cannot seem to get much support for sub-list (or
> > working group) Chairs, Coordinators -- call them what you like.
>
>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:11:27 +1000
> > It seems to me that there are two or three approaches which can be used
> > assuming you agree with the hypothesis that the General Assembly is not
> > working as intended.  Probable reasons are as follows:
>. . .
> > I'd appreciate your comments.
>
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:57:16 +1000
> > Personally I would like to achieve some work-output.
> > How do you think this would best be achieved?  I'd value your opinion
>
>etc.
>
>Best regards
>Patrick Corliss

--
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