Re: [ga] Addressing the Problems

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Allow me to agree and disagree here Mr. Williams.

Your poll and now PCs are working and they are setting a baseline understanding.

No one from Cane or Abel has yet to do a true bottoms up oriented work group.

If you really read the Green and White papers and about six different RFCs
and read our by laws and consider the Contracts with the USG and Mr. Clintons'
letter regarding same;  you inexorably come up to the conclusion that this is what
we have been doing wrong.  We must form these WGs from the bottom up using
open and transparent methodology in order to reach consensus on many broad based
and ultimate user issues.

In this case in large part due to your diligence we have a hard line understanding
of our
bottoms up requirement.

If we all avoid dictating procedural rules and work in a compromising fashion this
work will
be accomplished.

(oh for all who were wondering - yes my son stole 4 bases, made two remarkable
diving catches,
and had two hits in his game today)  Lighten up it is Saturday night here.

Eric


Jeff Williams wrote:

> Abel and all assembly members,
>
>   I agree that what you suggest Abel is one way in which to proceed.
> The biggest problem with doing so however is that the GA members
> and most especially the NC would likely not recognize any conclusions
> that could possible be derived if what you suggest is to be initiated
> from within the DNSO GA.
>
> Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> 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