ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] Help - Attn DNSO Secretariat, DNSO Archives Missing or not resolving/forbidden


I have a problem with general connectivity across the Atlantic. This may be
the problem. I can't get to freeler.nl either.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
|> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 6:42 PM
|> To: Eric@Business.com.VN
|> Cc: ga@dnso.org; DNSO Secretariat
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Help - Attn DNSO Secretariat, DNSO 
|> Archives Missing or
|> not resolving/forbidden
|> 
|> 
|> Eric and all assembly members,
|> 
|>   I also noticed this earlier today.  It seems like the 
|> archives that Eric
|> listed below are still either missing, not resolving or returning a
|> "Forbidden" error message...  Would the secretariat please
|> look into this?
|> 
|> Eric Dierker wrote:
|> 
|> >  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@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@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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>