[ga] The GA Process & Clarification

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

Hi Jeff

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:11:41 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

>   ALthough you "Summary" is very nice, it has been pointed out
> by Patrick to be somewhat incomplete and also does not address
> the process issue as the GA members requested, posted two polls
> on, and have shown a great deal of interest in.

I'm not sure I said that.  However, now that you mention it, I would like
to clarify one point that I did make as follows:

> > > (i) domain-policy archives.  According to a message from Chuck
> > > Gomes, in reply to a question from Patrick Corliss, the
> > > domain-policy mailing list was shut down by Verisign for legal
> > > reasons in May 2001.
> > > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00212.html>
> >
> > That's not accurate.

When I say "that's not accurate" I meant that Thomas is not accurately
reporting the thread in that he has not even mentioned the archives.  This
aspect was a significant part of the discussion (at least as far as I was
concerned).  My meaning should be clear in the context of the rest of the
paragraph (below).

> > Apart from VeriSign's misleading communications,

I clearly stated who made the misleading communication.  I don't have the
names to hand but the guy who posted the closing down message said to
contact some corporate PR man.  When I did, he ignored my request.

The closing down message can therefore be seen as misleading.

> > a significant part of the discussion related to their removal
> > of the list archives.  I requested that they be restored except for the
> > offending articles.  They are an important historical record.

I am keeping my 5,000 odd emails on the offchance that I will one day
be in a position to restore the archives myself.  I believe they may be
available as the Vpop archive at http://dompolicy.vpop.net but haven't
had time to check it out yet.  Apparently this dates back to 1998

My apologies if my wording implied any reflection on Chuck Gomes for
whom I have the greatest respect.  Sorry, Chuck !!

> Hence it would
> seem that a need for a WG for Delete, than debate, and discussion,
> as you very rightly suggest below, and then a Report from those
> debates and discussions be put before the GA members in the
> form of a ballot to vote upon as we have done in the past.

Quite a few people seem to support a working group.
 
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