Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  I would have to agree with Jefsey's contention here as well.  Although
Joanna may wish to be a candidate to represent registrants in some way
within the DNSO or the DNSO GA, a vote should be taken and a nomination
period for such a representative to be chosen within the GA.  As the DNSO GA
has a process for this to occur I would therefore suggest that first the
nominations be taken for such a position within the GA, and than
a vote be taken in accordance with that outlined and documented
process accordingly if such is approved by Danny's proposal in the
form of a motion.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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@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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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