Re: [ga] RE: Consensus development process

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Dear Chuck et. al.,

"legitimacy in terms of representation of all stakeholders"  Needs to be changed
to all interested stakeholders.

There is absolutely no outreach, to say nothing of effective outreach.

Both of the above are intentionally opposed by the BS and were it otherwise,
verisign would not have its' current agreement.  Strange, but it is a two edged
sword.

Again I must correct you as to working group D in that much has been done to
follow up, there has been a great deal of suppression of implementation.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Danny,
>
> Please show me the consensus development process and then help me understand
> its legitimacy in terms of representation of all stakeholders, in terms of
> documentation of of both proponents and those who disagree, in terms of
> effective outreach, etc.  All I have seen are efforts to skirt around such a
> process.  Working Group D made a good start at identifying what needed to be
> done, but little has been done to follow up on that work.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:51 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Cc: cgomes@verisign.com
> > Subject: Consensus development process
> >
> >
> > Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development
> > process has ever been
> > put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling at a
> > time when the
> > Names Council has established a Task Force charged with
> > arriving at a binding
> > consensus policy regarding the issue of transfers.
> >
> > The last thing that any registrant wants is to have a
> > disgruntled set of
> > registrars challenge a consensus determination on this matter
> > and further
> > delay efforts at resolution of an ongoing problem.  If Chuck
> > has legitimate
> > concerns regarding the consensus development process, now
> > would be the time
> > to air those specific concerns so that we can move forward
> > properly and
> > finally put this issue behind us.
> >
> >
> --
> 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

--
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