Re: [ga] Precedence/ GA Structure

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

Geroge and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com> wrote:
> > I would think that we should adopt some adaptation of these rules for
> > the GA.
> >
> > They were really quite well worked out.  They could easily be adapted
> > to
> > our necessary working group models.
> >
> > I know they are only rfcs' but I think they are good.  I think they
> > could also work for the TFs and be worked into any best practices.
> >
> > They certainly could guide us in this deletion and transfer
> > discussion.
>
> >From RFC 1600:
>
> "To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
> standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
> proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
> before a draft standard can be promoted to standard."

  Thank you for pointing this our for our fellow assembly member,
Eric.  I am hopeful that such reminders will in the future, near future,
aid in addressing Eric's well known and now well documented
disgruntlement with the IETF as well as hopefully influence
Verisign that they are with this proposal (WLS) reconsider their
position.

>
>
> These time standards especially are something that everyone can benefit
> from.

  Indeed true.  This is one of the RFC's that the IETF has done a
very good job on..

> With all the deletions proposals coming in (and I believe some
> registrars and non-registrars are preparing other proposals to be
> published soon), it is only reasonable to make sure that certain care
> is taken in arriving at the right policy going forward.

  Indeed it is George.

>
>
> It seems inappropriate for the group that is making a proposal to set
> their own deadline (e.g. 3 weeks) -- it should be done by an an
> impartial third party.

  Very much agreed.  In fact that is what the DNSO and especially the
DNSO GA should be considered, a impartial third party.  Given this
as well as the deadline not being in line with the MoU or the
White Paper, it would seem reasonable and prudent that the
DNSO members should have a vote on this proposal "As Is",
as well a submitting potential amendments or other proposals
along these lines that would be considered "Best Practices"
guidelines or even policy requirements by which registries and
registrars are required to follow.  In doing so, the requirements
of the MoU and the White Paper can than be served,

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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