[ga] Re: [wg-review] DNSO recommendations

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Sandy,
my target was only to draft some outlines and to
help discussion. But ...

On 19:28 17/03/01, Sandy Harris said:
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > The DNSO model I support is rather simple and not
> > so different from the existing one - once the voting
> > aspects have been changed.
> >
> > 1. The DNSO is to be a Consultant to the BoD on DN issues.
>
>My understanding is that the current bylaws make the DNSO the
>body with primary responsibility for making policy in this area.
>           ****************************************

This is not the role of a support organization. The bylaws
dont tell that the way I read them (I had an argument about
this with Karl Auerbach as he was *wishing* the things to be
the way you think they are)

Actually what is the target and the possibilities?

a) that nothing concerning DNs is decided without
     prior review and comment by the DNSO.  This
     exactly the purpose of a separate statement
     of mine in the model.

b) that this pretence is not denied to the DNSO on
     the ground that DNSO has no legitimacy and no
     serious staffing. This is why the DNSO (as support
     organization) cannot be in line. It cannot negotiate
     with VeriSign. It should act as a Parliament with a
     defacto veto power through the seriousness of its
     reports and work.

>I object strongly to the notion of formally reducing it to a
>consulting role. Of course I know that it has already effectively
>been reduced to that. I object to that as well.

No you do not object to that. You object to the fact that
this role is not acknowledged and that to date the DNSO
has never been able to do its job ... :-) at least this is
the way I read you.

We cannot claim for having a monopoly on a job we
should do and never did. The task of this WG-R is
to propose pragmatic solutions. We cannot control
the world, but we can control the way the BoD wants
to control it.

> > Only DN holders should be allowed as members.
>Absurd.

The DNSO is to talk about DN with
competence. The situation has drastically changed
from two years ago. I hardy see someone in this
WG-Review not owning a DN or not belonging to the
staff of an organization owning a DN. Namezero makes
them free... Today someone wanting to discuss DN
issues seriously and not owning a DN does not look
serious to me. With an exception may be (Jeff
Williams) and I suppose that actually Jeff owns a
few of them but wants to show he represents non
domain name owners as well.

These people are Internet stakeholders and are now
represented through @large.

This being said I will not make that point a big issue.
But DNSO has to ascertain itself as a center
of competence. All the existing constituencies are
based upon DN ownership/direct interest. The IDNH
would also be DN holders....

>many people other than domain holders have an interest in seeing
>the system work well.
>
>Granted, if there's a constituency structure then domain name
>holders must have a constituency. Methinks the public interest
>groups -- EFF et al -- should have one too, and those two
>constituencies together should have a majority of NC votes.

This would be a totally different model. I claim that DNSO is to
work by consensus and not by vote. There is just some
administrative matters such as selection of three competent
people for the BoD which require votes.

Please remember: DNSO is *no more* the @large
repository. It is an SO dedicated to DN oriented matters.

Take care.
Jefsey

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

--
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