[ga] Working Groups

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

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:24:20 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:

> There's also no benefit in having a "working group" unless it is actually
> empowered to make decisions which the DNSO can be expected to carry out.

I couldn't agree that a working group should be "empowered" to do anything
except report to somebody.  Nothing else concurs with the ICANN Bylaws.

What sort of power do you expect the WG to have over the SOs for example?

> That would mean such groups would need to be created and given terms of
> reference by the Names Council.

I'd guess that the GA would be happy to pass responsibility to the NC if it
acted professionally, sought wider input and determined issues on their
merits.  Instead they are captured (as is the whole of ICANN) by big business
interests.

It would be interesting, for example, to see whether VeriSign's WLS proposal
could, or would, get through the NC.  It couldn't get through the GA, that's
for sure.

> Of course, the NC should be doing this for any important question on which
> there is no obvious consensus, and should entirely scrap its farcical Task
> Forces in favour of open-to-anyone Working Groups as used by IETF.

Exactly my point, Sandy, so don't go giving the NC even more power.

> So let's push for that, but in the meanwhile let's not delude ourselves
> that the GA can create meaningful Working Groups.

In that case the GA is a dead duck and we might as well unsubscribe.

Sad to say, you and the other naysayers have won the day.

:-(

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