Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all assembly member,

  Thank you for this informative update.  Un fortunately as you are not
the elected representative for the task force, it is inappropriate to
consider anyone in that position currently.

  We must have an election to determine whom would be the best
GA member to represent the GA members.

DPF wrote:

> Danny asked me to both represent the GA on the NC Structure Taskforce
> and also to chair a committee of GA participants who are interested in
> the process, suggesting we use one of the specialised GA mailing
> lists.
>
> ga-icann seems to be the most appropriate list to use so I will use
> that list to keep people informed of issues before the Taskforce etc
> and also to try and generate some pro-active views.
>
> To ensure the widest available participation though I will also keep
> the GA itself updated on all issues and will read any comments made
> here.  So people can decide for themselves if they wish to participate
> through the specialist ga-icann group or just through the normal ga
> mailing list.
>
> Before getting into some of the more detailed issues I'd be
> interesting in views from people on basically whether the DNSO should
> be left as it is, modified or abolished.
>
> Most people (not all and I would like to hear from those who advocate
> for the status quo) seem to accept the DNSO is not performing
> particularly well.  It got effectively ignored by the Board on the
> Verisign contracts issue and also appears to have been bypassed on the
> issue of country name registrations in .info.
>
> The concept of having all domain name issues resolved within the DNSO
> and only get ratified by the Board is a noble one in principle.  The
> reality appears to be that the DNSO has not given the Board much
> guidance on domain name issues and when it has it has been ignored or
> bypassed.  Can one change the DNSO so that this is not the case?  WIll
> a more representative structure and more funding make enough of a
> difference?
>
> The alternate path to reforming the DNSO is what the ALSC has been
> looking at and effectively abolishing it.  The intent there seems to
> be dividing ICANN into a number of SOs such as providers and users
> where some existing DNSO constituencies would make up the providers SO
> and others the users SO.  If one goes down this path them domain name
> policy would not be the exclusive province of one SO.
>
> The number of permutations as regards to details is near infinite so
> at this stage what I would find useful is some feedback on which
> approach people prefer:
>
> a) Reforming the DNSO but keeping it as the sole SO dealing with
> domain name policy
> b) Abolishing the DNSO and focusing on what SOs should replace it and
> how they inter-act with each other
>
> So everything is out in the open I have to say my initial inclination
> is for (b) but this is not a strongly held conviction.
>
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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