[ga] Help

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

 http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnso/WGs.html

 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/archives.html

In that I do not want to go shopping or wrap gifts, or proofread fifty
pages of websites, I was looking up, through my archives, some old
WG-Review documentation that I thought may be helpful regarding
Transfers and the at-large.

Alas, I was thwarted in my effort as all of the above resolve in error
or a circle.

So then I went to:
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/
And alas it was forbidden.

So then I went to:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html
And I found what I was looking for.

So before you read this could one of you great soles help straighten out
those previous links so that common researchers can find what they
need.  I also believe closed NC list should be open to the public.

But here is what Karl wrote a year ago as a Christmas present to the
WG-Review and I believe it most closely resembles my intention for this
noble body;

       > 1. Objectives of the DNSO Review Working Group
       >
       > The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
       > the performance of ICANN's DNSO and to propose structural
       > and procedural changes that will help ICANN's Domain Name
       > Supporting Organization fulfill its mission of becoming a
bottom-up
       > policy coordination body.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
       I have a bit of trouble with the limited powers implied by the
word
       "coordination".

       The DNSO as a body is responsible not merely for "coordination"
but also
       for the *origination* of policy pertaining to DNS.  The
initiative for
       such policy might come from within the DNSO itself, by
unsolicited input
       from the net community, or by reference from the Board of
Directors or a
       question from another SO.


       > The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
       > the responses of DNSO stakeholders' and to vindicate that DNSO
       > would be a structure that will include all of those who will be
affected
       > by the DNS of the future as well as the current Netizens.

       We ought to dispense the concept of "stakeholders" - particularly
as some
       consider that concept to be one of the reasons why the DNSO is
stumbling.
       The DNS impacts everyone on the Internet.  That first sentence
should be
       reworded to begin "The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is
to
       evaluate the responses of interested persons" ...


       > 2. Authority - How this WG has been proposed and created.
       >
       > On July 14 the ICANN Board requested the Names Council
       > to submit its report on DNSO review in its Yokohama meeting
       > in July 2000. The report was supposed to be due on Oct. 13
       > and it has been deferred.

       I might also suggest that any body has an intrinsic power to
examine its
       own structures as long as that effort doesn't interfere with its
primary
       duties.

       Thus, in my opinion, the DNSO has always had its own ability to
initiate
       self-review and to make recommendations for improvement.


       > 3. Procedures and approaches
       >
       > Review Working Group will explore the concerns listed below
       > by online discussion mostly and if it is needed this group will

       > organize a face-to-face meeting before or after ICANN meeting.

       At this point I'd like to inject a plea for semi-formalized
processes,
       along the lines of those suggested by Mark Langston, to keep this

       discussion from going off into the weeds.



       > * The DNSO constituency Structure : Examine the structure and
       >    propose amendments that will ensure balanced representation
       >    of all stakeholder interests in an open, and transparent
process.
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
       ...
       > In the long term, DNSO Review Committee will be responsible for

       > enhancing more trustworthy working environment in the DNSO
       > and for ensuring all the stakeholders' voices should be HEARD.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

       Again, that loaded word "stakeholders" - we ought not to
pre-judge who has
       a "stake" but rather let people decide for themselves whether
they feel
       that they have an interest they want to protect.  Rather than
forcing
       people into pre-conceived, and arbitrary "constituencies" we
ought to
       allow people to aggregate (and de-aggregate) into fluid
coalitions.

       To that end I'd suggest that the last sentence in the above
quoted
       paragraph should be:

        "In the long term, DNSO Review Committee will be responsible for

        creating a more trustworthy working environment in the DNSO, for

        ensuring that all who desire to fully participate in the DNSO
may do so,
        and ensuring that the points of view and opinions of all who
believe that
        they may be affected by DNSO decisions may be fairly heard and
fairly
        considered."

                       --karl--

My best to Karl and Mark on this almost anniversary of this fine
contribution.  So many have worked so hard to try and make this work
that I do not believe we should give up.

Sincerely,
Eric

--
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