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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:18:42 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
<patrick@quad.net.au> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:41:21 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
>
>> 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.

I know but I don't think it is useful in the absence of a functional
GA Chair to effectively have everyone start acting as GA Chair and
starting polls - especially polls on the list which result in 40 or so
identical posts on what is meant to be a discussion list.

>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.

To be blunt the only use I see of polls for the GA is election of
officers or voting on internal rules.  The GA has no power at all
within ICANN so whether something is the consensus of the GA or passed
88-5 by the GA will have no effect on its ultimate disposition.

What we do have is the power of reason - to articulate and support
good arguments and also to be a forum where different constituencies
can discuss issues.  

Unless the bylaws of ICANN are changed (which I support) then most
votes are futile.  
 
>> 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 !!

I'm hopeful that shortly we will have a GA Chair who will be more
responsive to the needs of the GA.

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

No I don't.  It is frustrating the barriers placed before us.  I just
thought that starting a precedent of having any GA member start a vote
on any issue was a bad one.

>> 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.

They don't need a loophole to ignore the GA.  We have no power whether
or not it is a formal vote or informal consensus.

>> 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.

I understand - but I felt the precedent was bad for when we do have
one.
 
>> 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.

Actually I don't.  Roberto and Harald managed several initiatives.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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