Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time...

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

David and all DNSO'ers,

  Very good ideas here I think as well.  I believe as Jeff has stated,
and you too David, that Marks suggestion is one that should be looked
at seriously.  I would ask directly and politely, has the NC considered this?

Dnsipv6@aol.com wrote:

> Mark and everybody else,
>
>   I agree with you criterion that you listed (Outlined below).  But it
> is terribly obvious that Jonathan and I am sure some of the other
> "Watchdogs" along with likely, the DNSO NC either did not consider
> such crtirion.  I would also venture a guess, that most of the
> Participants would prefer and demand most likely, setting those
> criterion themselves in some form.
>
> David "Dude" Jenson
> INEGRoup-East Director
>
> In a message dated 12/2/99 10:37:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> skritch@home.com writes:
>
> << On 2 December 1999, Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:
>
>
>  >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>  >>[snip]
>  >> Shall we assume that those of us not in the elite club of folks that are
>  >> privy to the e-mails as they come in will have no idea who got nominated
>  >> or not until well after the close of the nomination period, due to this?
>  >
>  >  The only folks privy to the e-mails as they come in are the folks
>  >at AFNIC who are receiving them.  My understanding is that somebody at
>  >AFNIC will be keeping an eye on the process tomorrow through 9 pm (France
>  >time).
>
>  Thank you, Jon.  You see, this is exactly the kind of thing that should
>  be documented.  This coupled with your statement below indicates that
>  we cannot expect any acceptance updates over the weekend -- at least, we
>  can't be sure the website's list of acceptances is complete until after
>  the beginning of the French business day on Monday.
>
>  Really, I don't think it's too much to ask that this sort of thing
>  find its way into the documented procedures.  What seems trivial at one
>  time may become crucial at another;  why not err on the side of caution
>  and document it anyway?
>
>  It may seem that I overreact to this sort of thing, but please understand
>  my position:  Proper, transparent, agreed-upon, coherent, self-consistent
>  procedure is the entire basis for an organization such as this.  Fail to
>  provide it, and you'll have problems at every turn.  I strongly believe
>  this, and I've seen it proved true many times.  Look at the WTO as just
>  one example.  One of the main concerns the protesters have with the WTO
>  is that it's an unelected body that meets behind closed doors and doesn't
>  document their procedures.  Sound familiar?
>
>  I can work within almost any ruleset, as long as that ruleset meets the
>  following criteria:
>
>  1)  It's transparent -- I am capable of examining all aspects of it; nothing
>        about it is hidden from me.
>
>  2)  It's coherent -- the entire body of rules clearly lays out a course of
>        action; the rules to not confuse;  the rules eliminate confusion.
>
>  3)  It's self-consistent -- the rules do not contradict one another; one
>        rule does not bring into question another rule's appropriateness.
>
>  4)  It's agreed-upon -- everyone who claims to abide by and be bound by
>        the ruleset, is.  Furthermore, the ruleset has been arrived at by
>        the participants and agreed to.  (I personally feel #1,2, and 3
>        are not achievable without this, as they require oversight.  This
>        criterion provides it.)
>
>  So far, I have not seen a set of procedures within ICANN that meet any
>  of these four criteria, together or in isolation.
>
>  And I'll re-assert my position:  I don't think this is an unreasonable
>  expectation for the rules and procedures that govern a body such as ICANN.
>
>  Don't get me wrong;  It's entirely possible that I may not *like* a ruleset
>  that meets those 4 criteria.  But that's a different matter altogether from
>  expecting the ruleset to meet those criteria.  And, even if I didn't
>  particularly like a ruleset that meets those criteria, I'd still be
>  able to work within that ruleset with confidence.
>
>  I'd love it if we could get to that point.
>
>  >
>  >  [Warning: under the rules the NC announced, the *nomination*
>  >period closes tomorrow at *6* pm CET, 5 pm UTC.  Nominated candidates have
>  >until 9 pm CET to accept.]
>
>
>  --
>  Mark C. Langston
>  mark@bitshift.org
>  Systems Admin
>  San Jose, CA >>

Bob Davis...

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html