RE: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Regardless of whether you like Danny's choice of words or not, it appears to
me that what he is saying is probably quite accurate, at least with regard
to the fact the report is primarily one prepared by Philip.  I know for a
fact that the gTLD Registry Constituency submitted fairly significant
comments to the TF only to be largely ignored.  There was not even any
effort to discuss the points we put forward let alone consider any of them
in the task force report.

Unfortunately, this has become the standard operating procedure in the NC.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:23 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)


Philip Sheppard has published his latest version of the Structure TF report 
(v6) at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00013.doc

It's still a piece of garbage, and it does no more than incorporate the
IPC's 
comment that no policy recommendations should come from the ALSO separately.

It's time for our GA rep to react to this travesty.  

The ICANN Board requested comments on the ALSC Final report from the NC 
within 45 days of their November 15 announcement:  "Further resolved
[01.126] 
that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final Report from the Internet 
community as a whole, including the DNSO Names Council, the ASO Address 
Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests that any such comments be

submitted within 45 days from the date of this Resolution;"

Why are we participating in a bogus analysis of the ALM which is well past 
the deadline for comments, instead of looking at the restructuring proposals

for the DNSO which have been put on the table?  Why aren't we also looking
at 
the restructuring of ICANN in light of the movement toward a ccSO?  Why is 
the TF avoiding these other issues and only acting to attack the ALM?  

Does our GA rep support the position taken in the document that "There will 
be one additional at-large member than the status quo of five."?!! 

This is a call to arms.  Either you start fighting back for the future of
the 
At-Large or you put on your kneepads and grovel before the BC and IPC.  The 
choice is yours.  
--
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
--
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