Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

This statement is very valid, from my point of view.

It is a disservice to the hosting country that we can not plan to attend because of
no firm agenda.

It is a grave disservice that we cannot count on remote participation.

If this is the Boards intent they are doing it very well.

If not then further explanation is certainly warranted.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> With respect, I think more is called for.
>
> The Names Council has manipulated the TF/WG process beyond the bounds of
> good taste.  Since Working Groups were too hard to control, it abandoned
> them, and created Task Forces where it could control membership and
> chairmanship.  In the case of one notorious TF -- the one on 'structure'
> and thus the one with the greatest danger of doing something that might
> break the current capture by a faction on the NC -- the NC chair arranged
> to have himself appointed himself the chair of the TF, wrote a report
> supporting his interests and essentially ignoring dissenters.  That report
> will then go to ... the NC for approval.  That NC may well be run by the
> same person whose term is currently in danger being extended in violation
> of the previously existing rules of the NC.  (Control at any price?)
>
> In light of this history and your past personal commitment on this issue,
> the topic deserves its own separate agenda item, and guaranteed time for
> focussed discussion, not a relatively vague "expectation" that it may
> "fall with the range" or **possible** discussion (and/or get crowded out
> by other things).  The current 'fluidity' of the agenda makes doing this
> easy....although of course the same fluidity means that no one can plan
> whether to attend or not based on firm expectations of the topics to be
> discussed -- something which underscores the importance of high-quality
> support for remote participation, and the ability for remote participants
> to pass comments subject to the same flexible time constraints and
> especially lack of editing granted to live participants.
>
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, vint cerf wrote:
>
> > although the agenda is still somewhat fluid the question of
> > organizational structure will be on the table since we must
> > make decisions at least with regard to the proposed At Large
> > Support Organization. I expect the discussion will range beyond
> > that and DNSO matters strike me as falling within the range
> > of possible discussion.
> >
> > vint
> >
> > At 01:14 PM 2/17/2002 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> > >Dear Mr. Cerf,
> > >
> > >On December 17 you were kind enough to advise that certain GA concerns would
> > >be addressed at an upcoming Board meeting.  Will these concerns be placed on
> > >the agenda for Accra?
> > >
> > >Best wishes,
> > >Danny Younger
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> 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