[ga] Addressing the Problems

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

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:01:46 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I can read the best practices and GA rules but I find no rules for the
> GA setting up an internal working group.

Formal rules have been established by ICANN in their Bylaws.  However, I think
we all agree that formal procedures are up to the GA within the framework
established by the Names Council.

What that means is that the GA should get its act together.

> What is the logical problem with using an already existing list.

The existing lists were established at the GA Chair's request to the DNSO
Secretariat following my suggestion as Alt Chair.  They do not, therefore,
have the approval of the GA as a body.  As a result, members can argue that
the Chair did not have the proper authority of the GA.

Should the GA decide that it is appropriate to set up a Working Group for any
reason, the special purpose mailing lists are available for use.

I do wish, however, that people would not ascribe bad motivations to what I
have been trying to achieve viz an effective body to formulate domain name
policy.

> I find no suggestions even that indicate asking the Secretariat is
> appropriate.

The DNSO Secretariat effectively follows instructions from the NC.  Unless
there is general consent, it is difficult to persuade the DNSO Secretariat to
do anything.

> WXW absolutely does not want anything on any other forum within the GA.

I can't speak for William but my understanding is that he will not countenance
procedures that have not been properly approved.  Whilst I understand his
approach, I find that a little inflexible when gaining that approval is so
burdensome.

What it means, in my view, is that we spend more time than necessary debating
procedural issues at the expense of substantive issues which we need to
address.  I have expressed that point to the list on many occasions.

In other words, if the list is there I would rather just use it.

> Patrick insists we use the lists that are pre-established and call them a
sub-list.

My own concept was to have the GA develop "terms of reference" which they
could refer to working groups on relevant subjects like transfers and
expiries.  The working group would then report back to the main body of the GA
for final approval.

Whilst this is administratively convenient, there is a danger of creating a
group that is not representative of the main body.  I see that as not an issue
as the final approval will rest with the GA as a whole.  It is also in line
with similar methods used throughout the world.

> You insist on the nearly impossible - getting the secretariat and NC to act,
and
> formal voting, and a gratuitous list for a WG.  (you might as well ask code
writers
> to show up to work in tuxedos)

I don't always understand your comments but agree there are difficulties.

> I do not see one of you having as a primary agenda, putting together a group
> that can correlate existing comments, provide relevant questions and come up
> with consensual and dissenting positions.

That, Eric, is the problem which we are trying to address.

<snip>

Best 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