[ga] Practical support to Chair{s] propositions/efforts

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Patrick,
I see what you want to see achieved and I concur. But experience
shows that you need a case per case consensus to make an existing
ML rolling. Peole have to be excited about it to join and work.

To create an ML you may embark into discussing it from nil as you
propose or you can have it documented and requested (as Sotiris
did withe the WG-Review, as I did woth the WG-INSP, as DPF did in
proposing three MLs)...

But nothing will happen until someone creates it.

After that: three possibilities. Either there is no consensus on the need
of  the list and nothing happens. Either it is an institutional ML (like the
GA) and the list will spend months on its organization. Or the list is
owned by its founder and it will immediately keep rolling as did the
icann-candidate; icann-europe or icann-fra we started last year and
most of you belong to.


I found that quite undemocratic until I realized that the most respected
institution on the net was the donating foundation. I therefore incporated
a very small foundation (wold@wide) to help through low cost; small
work services like this. I also use a net specialized international 
secretariat
I incorporated 22 years ago (partly manned ... when I get the funding).
( http://international-secretariat.org ). World@wide's BoD currently includes
three person (two "net keepers" incoluding me and an angel) there are three
other Members under consideration (Directors are coopted). The SIAT BoD
includes representatives of 12 stakeholding companies and associations
(including mine which is providing the money management [Treasurer]
but not the money :-)  ).

A Site+ML may achieve great things, to permit them to exist and to
operate through moteration escalation and secretariat services is a
usefull mission. We have currently a few hundred sites under donation
(many as available local sites for several common interest causes).


The world@wide BoD has discussed the GA situation. In spite of
its disagreement with the iCANN in itself, we have agreed to bring
the following solution to the problems listed by Danny on various
mails:

1) a temporary set-up of http://dnso-ga.org early next week

2) the organization of three MLs:
     - DNSO/GA Mamangement [dnso-ga-man]
     - Proposition for an WG-Inclusive Name Space Management
       [dnso-ga-insm]
     - WIPO concerns  [dnso-ga-wipo]

3) we will link to the WG-Review site at http://stakeholders.com
     and publish the WG-Review ML continuation as soon as
     published.

While world@wide has not transfered ownership of the sites and of
the lists to ad hoc structures of he DNSO/GA,  it will provide limited
secretariat and ML moderation escalation. I expect everyone to help
because I only got an OK but not an approval and I will get no
funding on this as now.

In a practical way:

a)  I propose that [dnso-ga-man] is moderated by Patrick
b)  I would be very interested in some English speaking person
      moderating the  "WG-INSM Proposition to the NC" and leading
      the writing of the letter
c)  I suppose that DPF will want to moderate the WIPO ML?
d)  I thank Sotiris to let me know about the WG-Review so I
      may enter the WG-Reveiw elements correctly.

I do hope this will help us to concentrate on the work ahead
and that you will allow me to remove myself from this ASAP.
This is only a good will help, certainly not more :-)

Help and positive suggestions welcome.
Thank you for he comments of the concerned parties.

Jefey

On 08:02 21/04/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>The Chair & GA Members
>
>We could spend our time examining List Rules & Protocols but I see this as
>only one item on an agenda which should include many other important issues.
>Some of these may need to be addressed as a matter of priority.  One urgent
>issue, for example, is funding !!
>
>Could I ask the floor whether the following list is complete?  It already
>includes the Chair's concerns on "Registrant/Whois Privacy" and anything else
>I can think of.  I appreciate Joop's point that some motions have already been
>proposed to the Chair.
>
>Do we even think it is appropriate to deal with issues in a structured manner?
>
> > Accounting & Reporting
> > Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)
> > Conflict of Interests
> > Consensus Process
> > Constituency Structure
> > Dispute Resolution
> > Dot Org and Non-Profits
> > Generic & Chartered Domains
> >     (.com, .edu, .org, .us, etc.)
> > Electoral Procedures
> > Finance & Funding Support
> > ICANN Directors
> > Individual Constituency
> > List Rules & Protocols
> > Mailing List Facilities
> > Membership Structure
> > Multilingual DNS
> > Names Council Relationship
> > Outreach & Participation
> > Registrant/Whois Privacy
> > Registrar Accreditation, QA
> > Registry-Registrar Separation
> > Verisign Agreement
> > Voting and Electoral Issues
> > Website & Communication
> > Working Groups
> >
> > It has also been suggested that we should also request directly to Philip &
>Paul
> > Kane (with copies to nc members) specific  inclusion of ga chair & co-chair
>in
> > next Names Council teleconf with budgeted time to promote the GA agenda for
>the
> > next year.  This seems to be a valuable idea and I thank the relevant
>person.
> >
> > I'm sure I speak for you, Danny, when I say that we would welcome any
>feedback
> > from the list on what priority should be given to items on the proposed
>agenda..
>
>Regards
>Patrick Corliss
>Co-Chair Elect
>
>
>--
>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

--
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