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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all assembly members,

DPF wrote:

> 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.

  No one is acting as a GA chair.  Where do you get that idea.
Any GA members may post a poll if they feel that there is a
need for one.  This is not a duty or responsibility of a GA
Chair exclusively that I am aware of.  If you have documentation
to support otherwise, I for one would be most happy to see it.

>
>
> >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.

  A shame that you have this limited and skewed view.  Polls of many
different sorts are used every day, see Vote.com as an example.

>  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.

  I disagree.  If you read the ICANN Bylaws you will perhaps
change your position on this in a more correct direction.  That meaning
that indeed the GA does not have final say so over anything, but it
does have a right to weigh in with this GA body's position of issues
such as the delete issue.

>
>
> 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.

  Wrong.  The GA is a assembly.  It is a constituency itself.

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

  Changed with respect to what?

>
>
> >> 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.

  Informal consensus does not exist.  Never has.

>
>
> >> 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.

  You mean mismanaged I believe...

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