Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>Roberto,
>I fully agree with this "IF"
>At 17:52 04/12/00, you wrote:
>>Of course, if the WG becomes active in few days, why should we not take
>>the opportunity?
>
>but a GA task force migght help keeping active the WG, *if* it was
>sometimes less active.
>Would that be a problem in your opinion?

No problem at all. The problem would be *not* to be prepared to the 
possibility that the NC-WG will never get off the ground, or crippled, or 
inactive, or [insert your reason for failure here].

The GA-WG has to be kept in the background as alternate solution, and indeed 
a GA-TF should be in any case kept active to stimulate the activity of the 
WG, should it become dormant.

This is the text of a message I sent a short while ago to NC + DNSO Review 
TF. Obviously, if the WG is not started, we will go ahead with option number 
two.

Regards
Roberto

--------------- message to NC + DNSO Review TF

Good morning.
Before taking action on this I would like to know whether it is correct or
not that a WG on DNSO has been established in MdR.
I see now exactly what I told Ken Stubbs and YJ in MdR, that I feared the
next step could be to claim that the decision was not clear, that it was not
what it was meant, and the usual things (plus the additional recent one that
WG-D has not come to a real procedure to start WGs, and so we can't start
one).
So, what I do need before taking further action, is:

1. Does
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400-2.html
point V.H., reproduced below, mean that a WG will be started re: DNSO
Review?
   H.   Chicoine: Motion to make YJ the chair of a WG to address certain
DNSO specific issues that were raised by YJ. Approved by show of hands.

2. If "yes", what is the objection to start it (if any), and how are we
going to proceed? I understand that YJ has already a tentative timetable.
All we need is a mailing list to start.

3. If "no" what is the answer of the NC to the motion of the GA to start
such a WG? If not superseded by V.H. above, V.D.2. will obviously apply.

I believe that the credibility of the NC is at stake here.

Regards
Roberto



_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

--
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