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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:37:18 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
<patrick@quad.net.au> wrote:

>Hi David
>
>On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:50:39 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00665.html
>
>> Noise is stuff which is off topic.  The GA list is designed exactly
>> for discussing proposals such as WLS.
>
>Very often, on this list, there is diversionary debate, such as this
>procedural stuff, which does not advance the discussion on topics such as the
>WLS proposal.

Indeed.  And can I with all due respect suggest you are one of the
worst offenders.  You have done little except attack the new Chair
since his election.  This will certainly be my last post to this
thread.

>In fact, I already proposed that procedural stuff be debated elsewhere.  This
>was well supported by the GA membership but ignored by the former Chair.

The sub-lists are a failed experiment.  One can debate why and whom to
blame but having been defunct for so long I can seen little chance of
them now being useful to the GA.

>[ . . . ]
>> I do support asking the NC to set up a WG on this issue.  If the NC
>> agrees then it will be a worthwhile exercise as it will be official.
>
>So we have yet another procedural debate.  And, as I remember, you were
>opposed to the idea of a straw poll.
>
>Perhaps you could advise how, in the absence of a straw poll, the GA members
>can ask our Chair, Thoms Roessler, to set up such a WG ?

Umm this is easy.  First you could e-mail him and Alex privately and
ask him/them.  Secondly if you really want a DNSO WG to be established
you need to do some homework and get key parties involved.  Get
Verisign,the Registrars President, the other constituency key figures
to agree.  If you get them all agreeing it is a good idea then the NC
is far more likely to set one up.

>> If the NC do not agree then anything the GA sets up is simply a
>> dedicated mailing list.
>
>Not at all.  Were the GA to set up a WG by its own mandate, it would be a WG
>set up by the GA for the purpose.  We could even elect our own WG Chair !!!

One could do whatever one wants but it will be ignored.  Not saying
this is far or good but I try to deal with reality.

>I really don't see the difference except that you are:
>
>(a)    creating an unnecessary obstacle to the GA's own self-determination,
>and
>(b)    setting a terrible precedent about how things *should* be done.

With all respect the major obstacle is those who attack the new GA
Chair within minutes almost of being elected.  And secondly I don't
set the rules or precedent about how things can or should be done.  I
can only offer a veiw on what path is most likely to lead to success.

>None of that suggests that a single Working Group, with clearly defined scope,
>would not succeed in co-ordinating interested persons to produce an effective
>outcome.

I have never claimed otherwise.  

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