Re: [ga-rules] Agenda GA-RULES Mailing List

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

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:48:30 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

> I see 1 as being not narrow, rules-related issues, but rather
> of GA wide concern, hence more appropriate on ga, or
> perhaps better on ga-icann.  The same may apply to 6.
> As to 1 again, those seem not to be rules-oriented issues
> as to how a thing is to be carried out, but rather policy issues
> as to how we could get them covered in the first place.

Hi Bill

The [ga-rules] mailing list was never meant to be narrrowly focussed on
the list rules.  The name was changed from *Internal Processes* to be
more user-friendly.  Please don't make me go back to the GA list for more
debate on this aspect.

My motion was very carefully worded.  The [ga-rules] mailing list is about
any issue that is not substantive DNS.  It is really much more precise to
include ALL administrative and procedural issues on GA-RULES.  That
includes funding, websites and any other possible diversions.

Substantive issues relating to the DNS means just that.  Stuff like WHOIS,
UDRP, Alt Roots etc.  It does not mean admin OR procedural issues.

In fact, it is almost impossible to separate *rules* from the management of
the website and mailing lists.  These include bounced and returned mails,
informing new members, making announcements and so on.

All are performed by the DNSO Secretariat through the Names Council.

Another example relates to the procedures for conducting ballots and/or
elections.  At present we have an [announce] mailing list which is
infrequently used.  I am not even sure who is included on that list.

The Names Council has argued that many of these services cannot be
performed because of limited funding.  Several people, yourself and Joanna
most prominently, have kindly provided website services to fill the gap.
Joop Teernstra has offered the use of his polling booth.

However, the *rules* require ballots to be formally conducted.  We would
then need to discuss using "straw polls" or other informal procedures.

Once you start discussing these issues, it really does become impossible not
to talk about funding.  All are intrinsically related and the last thing we
need is a demarcation dispute which would carry over to the main GA list.

Once you put some on [ga] and others on [ga-rules], you have opened up the
door to more debate from those who will inevitably try to re-draw the line.

However I will concede that discussion of ICANN funding generally is a
matter for the GA as a whole.  This should be conducted on the [ga] list
unless members of that body voluntarily wish to use [ga-icann].

> Don't be negative and say "lack of confidence." Instead,
> say "confidence building."  :-)

Sure.  Let's build confidence in the General Assembly as an effective place
to achieve DNS policy outcomes rather that a discussion group on procedural
issues ;-)

> Bill Lovell

Best regards
Patrick Corliss



--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html