Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Phiilp,
Patrick Corliss has brough to the attention of the GA the proposition of 
Danny Younger to call on Joanna Lane as a representative of the registrant 
community.

This proposition has not been discussed in the GA and will obviously 
creates a debate if you consider Joanna as a "representative of the 
registrant community". Yet - as one of those who could object to such a 
proposition - I will support it strongly if we could once for all agree on 
the concept of representation within the DNSO. I suppose that an agreement 
on this matter would also help reducing hours and tons of mailing.

Joanna has strictly no right whatsoever to represent any community. She 
recently left the only existing attempt to structure that community. But 
she has every qualification to well represent the interests, concerns, 
particular needs and propositions of the individual registrants. As you 
have yourself no right to represent the Business Community, but absolutely 
legitimately have every qualification to represent the interest, concerns, 
etc... of the Business Community.

I would thefore strongly recommend that once for all we agree that all of 
us are no representatives in a democratic way but insuring a trustee 
representation towards consensus. And that a consensus is not a vote but a 
no major objection by qualified interests that (if the ICANN processus 
recently underlined by Danny is respected) a 2/3 vote of a balanced open 
group may warranty.

I would also add that if Joanna is fully qualified, experienced and 
competent about individual registrants, as myself also a bulk commercial 
registrant (I manage more than 2000 DNs for several portal chains) there 
are many issues that individual do not experience that should be 
represented. These involves matters like:

- script management
- payment systems and wire transfers
- status reports - format, accuracy, legal value
- user escrowning
- UDRP insurance protection scheme
- DN Title
- DN usage international notarization
- customership evaluation and compensation
- legal responsibility of the Registrars/Registries
- places of jurisdiction
- name server management and bulk updates procedures and delays
- emergency support - like the ncdnhc current problem
- authentification of the registrant
- TLD procedure harmonization

I suppose the BC or the ISPC could be a place to find such a representation 
with competence.
Best regards

Jefsey












On 17:46 26/11/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:12:11 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00423.html
>
>Joanna,
>
>Marilyn Cade, chair of the NC task force on transfers, has passed on to me as
>NC Chair, a request from Danny Younger for your participation in the task
>force as a representative of the registrant community but not as a
>representative of the GA.
>
>Typically, the working practice of task forces is that they comprise one rep
>from each Constituency and an optional rep from the GA. They do work to help
>formulate a recommendation to the NC.  In this work the TF themselves may
>consult experts and interested parties.
>
>Before taking this further could you let me know the basis for your
>qualification as a representative of the registrant community ?  In this it
>would be helpful to know the means of outreach to other registrants, how this
>is different to the nature of representation in the GA and how this is
>differentiated against the opinions currently available to the task force from
>its membership.
>
>Many thanks.
>
>Philip Sheppard
>NC Chair
>
>
>
>--
>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