Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

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

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:41:21 +1300, David Farrar wrote:


> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:07:02 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
> <patrick@quad.net.au> wrote:

<snip>

> Could I suggest both this poll and the previous one while well
> intentioned lead to the GA being more dysfunctional.  Many do not
> subscribe here to see 40 people vote on a list.

True.  But even now people are arguing whether the issue should be
referred to DNSO Secretariat to conduct a formal vote.

It is, of course, true that sending issues to a fomal vote via the DNSO
Secretariat is most time-consuming and laborious method of proceeding.

OTOH, a poll runs the risk of not being acceptable by those who insist on
strict compliance with the rules.  Many on this list take a strict approach.
 
> I know we are basically without a GA Chair for now which doesn't help
> but the way I see it is that when polls are needed the GA Chair should
> arrange these through the Secretariat.

When Danny was Chair he basically ignored my own request for a vote
on the GA rules despite it being well supported.  And the DNSO Secretariat
flatly refused to accept even simple requests from me as Alt Chair unless
they were approved by the GA as a whole.  That meant a vote !!

Please don't assume that I am doing this stuff because I like bureacracy.

> However in both the recent cases no poll was needed IMO.  It was
> obvious there was next to no support for the WLS proposal and as not a
> single Registrar is supporting it, it is basically dead in the water.

You really don't want to give the ICANN Board a loophole like we did the last
time a VeriSign proposal was formulated by Joe Sims and pushed through the
ICANN Board via the Names Council.

> A good GA Chair would have felt confident concluding the GA does not
> support the proposal on the basis of the excellent discussion we have
> had here.

Sorry, David, we have not had a "good" GA Chair for over a year.  And at
the moment we haven't got any at all.  So we make do as best we can.
 
> Likewise wrt setting up a WG.  The GA Chair should be able to read the
> mood of the GA and either set up a GA Working Group or preferably ask
> the NC to set up a DNSO Working Group on the issue.

No, sorry.  Every time the Chair takes an initiative it is firmly opposed by
almost everybody on the list.  You know that very well.

Just look at what happened to my initaitive on the special purpose mailing
lists to be used by task forces !!!

Actually we don't even need to take a poll as the former Chair has already
set them up.  But I am 110% certain that William X. Walsh will not allow us
to use them.  Or not accept any output from the working group.

Despite his stated expression of support for your views.

Nevertheless, I would truly love to be proved wrong.
 
> We should reserve votes to when they are really needed, and let the GA
> Chair call them.

When we have a GA Chair, perhaps.  Until then . . . . 
 
> DPF

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