[ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

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

All

So far, it looks as if almost everyone is opposed to VeriSign's WLS proposal
except the staff of VeriSign and SnapNames themselves.

There also seems to be reasonable support for the idea of setting up a WG on
domain name registration systems.  However, some seemed to prefer that this be
done by the NC rather than the GA itself.  I think this is creating an
unnecessary obstacle to our self-determination.

I haver extracted most of the relevant comments below.  Unfortunately, I could
not interpret the views of some people (such as Kent Crispin) who chose not to
respond to the straw poll.

As a few people have expressed strong views, I'd say we need further
clarification.  It does look as if consensus is that any working group should
be open to all comers.

I therefore propose we amend the poll as follows:

In relation to setting up a Open Working Group on domain name registration
systems to address the problems associated with transfers, expirations and
deletions.

In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [X]
In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request
 ]
Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

I understand that some are opposed to the whole idea of having a straw poll
but there is no other way for the Chair to determine the wishes of the GA
membership.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:07:02 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

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

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:07:31 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> Very well articulated, and I support this point 110%.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:23:51 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:58:01 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]
> Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:55:52 -0600, Don Brown wrote:
> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:38:20 -0600, Hugh Blair wrote:
> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:16:06 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:
>  In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:42:32 +0000, Matthew Pemble wrote:
> Perhaps, once announced, the newly elected Chair could organise a formal
> poll on formation of a working party and which members of the GA would
> be willing to participate?

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:19:35 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> don't ask,  just  do...

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:24:20 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> 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.
>
> So let's push for that, but in the meanwhile let's not delude ourselves
> that the GA can create meaningful Working Groups.





--
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