Re: [ga] Addressing the Problems

[Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>]

Undoubtedly there are a lot of rules to be observed.

Whether you should always do so is a totally diffreent matter.
 In life one sometimes has to act instead of delaying by applying for all the 
right way.

The idea is to have a seperate list to work this out and come to a consensus 
opinion which will then be proposed to the GA, as happens with all workgroups.

I can not see why we can not simply start and file the needed requests at the 
same time, explaining we made use of avaialble resources in the meanwhile.

Division starts wth laying out rules that delay, then you can succesfully 
push anything you want to ignore the GA on in the meantime stating they did 
not reach consensus (in time).

Considering the number of postings makes it clear not everyone enters this 
discussion, perhaps more perhaps less will do so on a seperate list.

If need be we can run a quick questionaire on the GA to see if the GA has 
faith in such an approach.

I for one am for acting instead of waiting for the inevitable.

abel


On Saturday 12 January 2002 9:45 am, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:01:46 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > I can read the best practices and GA rules but I find no rules for the
> > GA setting up an internal working group.
>
> Formal rules have been established by ICANN in their Bylaws.  However, I
> think we all agree that formal procedures are up to the GA within the
> framework established by the Names Council.
>
> What that means is that the GA should get its act together.
>
> > What is the logical problem with using an already existing list.
>
> The existing lists were established at the GA Chair's request to the DNSO
> Secretariat following my suggestion as Alt Chair.  They do not, therefore,
> have the approval of the GA as a body.  As a result, members can argue that
> the Chair did not have the proper authority of the GA.
>
> Should the GA decide that it is appropriate to set up a Working Group for
> any reason, the special purpose mailing lists are available for use.
>
> I do wish, however, that people would not ascribe bad motivations to what I
> have been trying to achieve viz an effective body to formulate domain name
> policy.
>
> > I find no suggestions even that indicate asking the Secretariat is
> > appropriate.
>
> The DNSO Secretariat effectively follows instructions from the NC.  Unless
> there is general consent, it is difficult to persuade the DNSO Secretariat
> to do anything.
>
> > WXW absolutely does not want anything on any other forum within the GA.
>
> I can't speak for William but my understanding is that he will not
> countenance procedures that have not been properly approved.  Whilst I
> understand his approach, I find that a little inflexible when gaining that
> approval is so burdensome.
>
> What it means, in my view, is that we spend more time than necessary
> debating procedural issues at the expense of substantive issues which we
> need to address.  I have expressed that point to the list on many
> occasions.
>
> In other words, if the list is there I would rather just use it.
>
> > Patrick insists we use the lists that are pre-established and call them a
>
> sub-list.
>
> My own concept was to have the GA develop "terms of reference" which they
> could refer to working groups on relevant subjects like transfers and
> expiries.  The working group would then report back to the main body of the
> GA for final approval.
>
> Whilst this is administratively convenient, there is a danger of creating a
> group that is not representative of the main body.  I see that as not an
> issue as the final approval will rest with the GA as a whole.  It is also
> in line with similar methods used throughout the world.
>
> > You insist on the nearly impossible - getting the secretariat and NC to
> > act,
>
> and
>
> > formal voting, and a gratuitous list for a WG.  (you might as well ask
> > code
>
> writers
>
> > to show up to work in tuxedos)
>
> I don't always understand your comments but agree there are difficulties.
>
> > I do not see one of you having as a primary agenda, putting together a
> > group that can correlate existing comments, provide relevant questions
> > and come up with consensual and dissenting positions.
>
> That, Eric, is the problem which we are trying to address.
>
> <snip>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

-- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
--
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