Re: [ga] Addressing the Problems

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

Eric and all assembly members,

  If you had read completely and carefully what I posted in response
you would know that clearly I did NOT say that the DNSO GA
initiated WG thus far have been open and transparent and therefore
not completely bottoms up.  However the answer I gave was
correct...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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

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