Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

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

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:55:44 EST, Danny Younger wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03059.html

Hi Danny

I must say that your posting was the most self serving drivel that I have come
across in a long time.  By now several people have responded to the effect
that the GA is working at a huge disadvantage wrt ICANN.  And your blaming
tactic, directed against the GA which you led, is rather shameful.

> It was my expectation that GA members that purportedly represented the
> interest of domain name holders would have clamored to join these particular
> task forces,

You and I already set up no less than seven special purpose mailing lists.
These were being developed into working groups with agendas and terms of
reference.  Unfortunately, for reasons best known to yourself, you chose to
kill the whole scheme.  Please don't try to deny it.

I warned you repeatedly, both privately and publicly, that this would be the
result of your intransigence.  Although the NC started to run interference
through Philip Sheppard and Elisabeth Porteneuve, that scheme was fully
participative and under the direct control of the GA.

The second rate replacement now on the table, has just one member representing
the GA on each working group.  In most cases, as far as I can determine, there
is no Terms of Reference defining the issues which need to be addressed.  As a
process that is woeful.

You have made comments like "that left it up to me to represent the GA and
registrants on these task forces in the absence of any articulated interest on
the part of these so-called champions of domain name owners".

No, Danny, your lack of integrity, leadership and honour meant that you
had little support except from a small clique of your friends.  You lost my
support and even that of your nominator.

> These task forces are invariably long term projects that require
> participation at several plenary sessions, participation in
> regularly-scheduled teleconferences, and hundreds of hours of work.

Sure.  That's why we needed to have dedicated working groups with a proper
structure, agenda and terms of reference.  In case you have forgotten I refer
you to the following:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:30:31 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02570.html

> Let's call those Working Groups (WGs) or Special Interest Groups (SIGs) with
> dedicated people.
>
> Those people understand the issues relevant to their subject.  The main GA
> list is really a "control" program of everybody.  The GENERAL assembly then
> decides that an issue is worth discussing.  They can create a "terms of
> reference" and refer the matter to one of the WGs.  A good example is WHOIS
> privacy in relation to the European Community.
>
> The WG or SIG can come up with a policy recommendation and refer it back to
> the main membership for a vote.  Does that make sense or not?
>
> Let's say the WHOIS issue is handled by GA-SYS.  You could call them WG-SYS
> if you prefer.  They come up with a recommendation on the Administration
> Contact.  Simple enough.  Let's say the recommendation is "that the
> Administration Contact is the agent of the Registrant and the Registrant may
> redelegate that authority at any time".  Fine.  We have a vote.  Adopted.
> Passed to ICANN as having consensus among all the participants.
>
> So the WG Chair is the "input-output control" of the Group.  Just like any
> other Chair of a sub-committee, investigative study or panel.  It's what we
> do in Australia.  There's a Terms of Reference (INPUT) and a report
> (OUTPUT).  Meanwhile the WG just chugs along doing its stuff.
>
> William X. Walsh sees such a system as open to capture and I agree that
> there is a danger of that.  There are two arguments against that view:
>
> First that everybody who is interested in a subject can join a working group
> of their choice.  One person may not be particularly interested in, say,
> UDRP or WHOIS systems.  They can choose not to participate.
>
> Second that everything must come back to the GA list for final approval.  If
> that list was kept light (as a control program) then you could require
> everybody to join it i.e. set up the system so that everybody who joins a
> sublist must be a member of the main GA list.
>
> The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you WILL get
> some work done.


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