Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear William,
I do not understand your point. I do not see what the NC has to do here.

- Denny Younger as a private person proposed the NC to initiate a WG.

- I think it is a good idea, but it should be a concerted and documented
   request. IMHO you cannot request a WG-Inclusive Name Space
   Management like that to the NC. Also the decision is by the BoD.

   I think that asking such a WG-INSM is a special and difficult task that
   the GA might assign to itself. If the GA may workout a good request to
   the BoD, it will mean that we can discuss the issue (today when you
   ask if they want to discuss y/n, ... they respond a Credo).

   To achieve such a task, I think we must remove the issue from the
   GA main list and see first if the interested people may talk together.
   We also must enlarge the subject to what is of real concern for the
   iCANN and not only to a few stakeholders creeds, concerns and
   interests. IMHO it is the only way for them not continue arguing on
   small details. (I feel there is a large vision they may build together
   that the iCANN fails to see as actually its own).

- if that ML may make practical constructive propositions both on the
   way to positively set-up a WG and to propose an agenda, IMO we
   could then propose the BoD to create a WG.

   Then the BoD might call upon the advice of the NC before taking
   a decision.

You see the GA has shown its importance with the VRSN issue. But
it just then claimed a disagreement and published a voted position.
This lead the constituencies to move and the NC to take a position.
This was a good scheme: we did not impose the NC to take a decision.
But in that case we asked nothing. Here we want to ask something
and we have to find the best way to do it, using that experience.

This is why I think the best is to call directly on the BoD which has
to decide so the BoD to ask the agreement of the NC. If you consider
what we did in the VRSN case, this is that scheme we followed. We
did not call on the NC, we published an opposition to Staff.

This way we keep the control of our position. We do not conflict
with the NC (we have no structural relation with it: we are just some
kind of action committee). But through the decision maker (BoD) we
accept the ultimate say of the NC, so we respect the bylaws and
the NC mandate.

Jefsey


On 04:21 14/04/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Jefsey,
>
>Friday, April 13, 2001, 6:30:11 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > To all.
> > In order to document the Chair on the number of people that would
> > participate to a ML on the iCANN management  of the inclusive name space
> > (the whole name space available to Internet names), I would thank those 
> who
> > would like to participate seriously to let it me know.
>
>I think this should wait until we even know IF a work group will be
>formed by the NC.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.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