Re: [ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:25:14 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> you propose us 7 or 9 "Patrick Corlisses", i.e. good will people trying to
> make enforced an agenda without coordination nor consensus.

Hi Jefsey

Thank you for attributing me with good will.  However the following words
suggest some crackpot scheme of my own.  In fact, as you well know, I have
tried very hard to seek consensus.  In the process I have written hundreds
of emails to you alone -- more than anybody else on this list !!

Here's just one comment I made to you on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:02:21 +1000
when I wrote:

> My "agenda" as you call it is to be altruistic, helpful, honest and
> hard-working.  Nobody spends more time trying to build consensus
> (writing long letters to people like you, for example) than I do.  I
> could go on but I feel it's a waste of time . . .

That was almost two months ago, Jefsey.  What have I said publicly?

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:34:32 +1100
> I do not want to make that particular case at the moment (for or against)
> but would like to draw out some aspects for consideration by the list.

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 07:35:15 +10001
> It is my nature to seek consensus and that's why I'm proposing peace
> between ICANN and the alternative community.  It's also why I'm proposing
> a peaceful resolution of colliding TLDs.  It's because I'm in favour of
> democracy, participation and more that I am proposing a fairer
> constituency structure

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:34:12 +1000
> I would ask that those of us who support Joanna's attempt to capture
> members' concerns in this short period endorse her letter and/or add
> their signature.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:19:57 +1000
> Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for volunteers to act as List
> Monitor.

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:13:46 +1000
> Of course, all of us -- and I include myself -- are tempted to respond
> with personal characterisations. However, we must all resist the
> temptation if we wish the General Assembly to be considered an
> appropriate forum for serious debate.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:00:01 +1000
>  Since I have been Co-Chair I have said very little in support of
> "alternative roots" except that I agreed with Danny that there should
> be a separate mailing list.  I gave simple reasons without any emotive
> argument.

On Wed, 2 May 2001 02:09:09 +1000
> I'd suggest, therefore, that this issue is one that relates to the
> competitive position of local commerce and industry.  It is interesting,
> topical and relevant.  I would appreciate any feedback that members can
> provide in understanding this technology and/or its implications for the
> promotion of TLDs other than .com.

On Thu, 3 May 2001 14:35:41 +1000
> Given that there will, at least, be confusion, would you be kind enough to
> specify why ICANN should not have a policy?  It is not sufficient to say
> "the root systems are independent".  So are countries but they have
> international agreements.

On Thu, 3 May 2001 15:32:06 +1000
> The real question is whether ICANN should have a policy?  What should
> it be?

On Fri, 4 May 2001 04:36:54 +1000
> My point, which has in fact been made elsewhere, was to ask members of
> this list whether there were any *policy concerns* about the contracts.
> If so, it might be appropriate for us to convey those concerns to members
> of the ICANN Board.

On Sun, 6 May 2001 00:32:20 +1000
> As the role of the DNSO General Assembly is to provide consensus-based
> policy input to ICANN, what should that consensus-based policy be?

On Sun, 6 May 2001 21:32:37 +1000
> I think most people will agree with the truth of your observations below.
> What we need to do now, it seems to me, is move on from saying "Yes, there
> is a problem" to working out whether on not ICANN should have a policy
> and, if so, what it should be.
. . .
> Given your stated views, do you see any merit in such an approach?

On Sun, 6 May 2001 22:40:34 +1000
> I'm sure you agree that ICANN should adopt compliance with the relevant
> standards as a general principle.  And to encourage co-operation and
> compliance within the industry is hardly a radical notion.

On Sun, 6 May 2001 23:40:13 +1000
> Anyway, can you think of an amendment to soften the implication?

On Wed, 9 May 2001 15:23:24 +1000
> It's a very *iffy* proposal but I see it as the only one that stands a
> chance of getting adopted on a consensus basis.  But you turn your head
> away from even the tiniest glimmer of light at the end of the long, dark
> tunnel.

On Thu, 10 May 2001 00:58:13 +1000
> My intention was to formulate a consensus motion more-or-less acceptable
> to both groups.  I don't think tht your motion even pretends to do that.
> You are therefore forcing a division instead of a consensus.  Which
> suggests to me that we will end up with two opposing motions which can
> then be put to the vote.

On Thu, 10 May 2001 02:33:38 +1000
> There MAY BE a possible consensus motion.  Meanwhile we will treat it as
> two opposing motions both of which might need work.  If they can be merged
> later that will be good.  If not we will put them to the vote as "opposing
> motions".  Vote one or the other.

On Sun, 13 May 2001 21:44:57 +1000, I wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 21:07:35 +1000, Dassa wrote:
> > Perhaps we should be discussing if ICANN needs to adopt a policy to deal
> > with other root zones?  If so, what that policy should be.
>
> Thank you, Dassa, from the bottom of my heart.  Have you any idea how
> often I've said exactly that on this list?

On Tue, 15 May 2001 05:00:17 +1000
> The proposed policy that has been moved and seconded is very clear.  You
> have indicated that you understand it.  All of the persons posting have
> explained their positions.  These can be summarised as follows:
>
> (1) <snip>
>
> (4)    ICANN has no policy on so-called "alternate root systems".   The
> mandate of the DNSO is to provide such a policy.  This should be based on
> consensus according to the by-laws.

On Wed, 16 May 2001 00:04:47 +1000
> In fact, I am pleased to see that your latest response, which addresses
> the propositions individually, does advance the debate adequately.  I
> thank you for your efforts.

On Sat, 19 May 2001 02:01:51 +1000
> Article 3(iii) requires ICANN to develop policies for determining the
> circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root
> system.  Should anyone know of such policies, I would appreciate a pointer
> to where they might be located.

On Mon, 28 May 2001 15:32:27 +1000
> I welcome any constructive suggestions ;-)

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:14:31 +1000
> I'd agree with the following comment made to me privately:
. . .
> What do you think ?

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
> The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
> discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly
> William X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views
> which I'd like to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people
> have a genuine interest in such a discussion.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 02:45:43 +1000
> I'd like, if we can, to work our way through Stuart's paper.  Like it or
> not, it is the principal statement on the table and needs to be addressed
> properly.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:36 +1000
> Good idea.  Let's work on a dictionary of terms to be put on FAQ
> ("frequently asked questions") on the DNSO website.  We can then
> reasonably expect people not to explain such terms.

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:38:03 +1000
> Hard to tell, from the quote, who agrees with Karl and who doesn't.  My
> understanding, from previous list discussions, is that most people in the
> alt.root community agree with Karl's paper on Multiple Roots.  I'd ask
> anyone who doesn't to raise their hands.

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 02:26:45 +1000
> But I'd like to see some genuine policy outcome on this list.

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 06:49:15 +1000
> (1)  Viability of the List.  Why have the 100 or so members of the
> original WG-REVIEW not joined this GA-REVIEW mailing list?  Is it
> because the work is completed?  Are they likely to sign up anytime
> soon?  In other words, will the list be useful? and viable?

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:02:30 +1000
> Thank you very much for your most welcome explanation of the work of the
> WG-REVIEW.  You have clearly gone to a lot of trouble which I am certain
> will be most appreciated by those of this GA list who were not involved
> themselves.
 . . .
> Personally I think seven sublists is too many.  I would value input from
> the list members in relation to how the see the system working most
> effectively.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:29:11 +1000
> I have asked almost all of the people nominated below, both privately and
> onlist, if they would volunteer their services as a sub-group Chair.  From
> memory, one person ignored the request and the others declined.  I do not
> expect a significant turnaround.
 . . .
> My view is that we need a bit less top-down and a bit more bottom-up !!

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:06:19 +1000
> I think there's a general consensus that the idea is over-played
> particularly when we cannot seem to get much support for sub-list (or
> working group) Chairs, Coordinators -- call them what you like.

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:11:27 +1000
> It seems to me that there are two or three approaches which can be used
> assuming you agree with the hypothesis that the General Assembly is not
> working as intended.  Probable reasons are as follows:
. . .
> I'd appreciate your comments.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:57:16 +1000
> Personally I would like to achieve some work-output.
> How do you think this would best be achieved?  I'd value your opinion

etc.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss





--
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