Re: [ga] Addressing the Problems

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

Abel and all assembly members,

Abel Wisman wrote:

> The GA has the final vote on all matters concerning the GA

  Well usually.  However with the current Task Forces this has yet
to be proven true.  FOr instance if you recall I requested the
NC and the DNSO Secretariat to put together a ballot on the
v5.4 of the .ORG divestiture being determined in the .ORG
TF.  We have yet to see a ballot...  I an CC'ing both on this
response yet again...

>
>
> A representative is a representative

  Yes if they are voted in by the GA members.  But any resolution
or best practice document derived, as you indicated above Able,
must be approved by the GA members by vote.

>
>
> The GA (IF) approves the WG, then let's do the work and stop falling in these
> traps to do things completely by the book that was written to prevent
> anything ever getting done.

  I don't agree that following a procedure that many of us fought to
get put into place so that fairness, transparency and openness is, or
does prevent anything from getting done.  If however the process is
circumvented or otherwise abridged than some measure of fairness,
openness and transparency is lost.  Given that, the conclusions
that may be reached do not and cannot reflect the predominance
of the GA members.  Ergo those conclusions would be illegitimate
at best.

>
>
> Further, I have yet to see the GA or the NC make objections, so let's not put
> hurdles in our way that may not be there

  The NC does not have to make objections, it only need to ignore
the wishes of the GA members to put up a hurdle to real open and
transparent progress.

>
>
> Finally in my opinion anyone can make suggestions to the GA, and if the GA
> accepts such suggestions they become GA decisions

  Yes, it the are voted upon by the GA members so that we can know
that a true consensus has been reached instead of just declared.

>
>
> abel
>
> On Sunday 13 January 2002 4:12 am, 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,
>
> --
> 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

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