<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Motion # 1
I agree with Thomas that members of the GA should be contributing to
discussion on the issues of WHOIS bulk access, deletes and the WLS proposal.
However...
The bulk WHOIS issue was referred to the DNSO on Jan.22 and remanded to a
Task Force chaired by Marilyn Cade (that in typical task force fashion has
done nothing to attend to the issue).
The Board next called for a comprehensive DNSO review of the issue of deletes
and the WLS proposal, and this topic was again remanded to another task force
chaired by Marilyn Cade (and other than one comment put forth by Thomas and
apparently ignored by all other task force members, this task force also has
done nothing to address the issue).
For some reason which I can't fathom, Thomas likes the task force concept and
has advocated on its behalf in the Names Council teleconferences. I view
such task forces as an insult to the General Assembly, and no more than an
oppressive tool that denies us our right to full and unfiltered participation
in policy discussions within an appropriate list environment.
By eliminating open working groups, the Council has killed off effective
member participation in relevant discussions. We cannot post to these closed
task force lists, and if our "representatives" choose not to forward our
relevant comments (as has been the case) there remains not much incentive for
us to contribute.
When you look at some of these task forces you will note that half of the
appointed members never bother to participate, and that "discussion" is
almost non-existent. Less than half of the members of the Council are even
subscribed to the GA list, and GA discussions almost never make their way
onto a task force list.
Most of you will recall the efforts of the Review Working group. That
effort, within three weeks, produced 1500 comments and a comprehensive
document. What has the transfers task force accomplished in the last three
weeks? 4 comments. How many comments have there been on the .org RFP? 4
comments. How many task force comments have there been on the WLS proposal?
1 comment.
This is pathetic.
The problem is not a lack of interest on the part of the GA. The problem is
that we are being denied the open working groups which made it possible for
us participate in a meaningful fashion. If Thomas believes that we should be
participating to a greater degree in a discussion of the "relevant issues",
let him start advocating for the return of the Working Group or the
elimination of the Council that has denied us our participatory rights.
As I do not wish to exceed the quota of five daily postings, let me add that
I support the text of Jamie Love's motion #1 so that our Chair can duly
record my name as being in support of holding the vote.
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|