Re: [ga] Setting Up A Working Group (was GA summary 2002-02)

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:25:57 -0800 (PST), George Kirikos wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:27:24 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:36:38 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> > As I pointed out in a separate posting, most of this discussion was
> > led by OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers.
> > Your summary does not fully specify the respective relationships.
<snip>

> Being a proponent of consumer choice, and against monopolies doesn't
> make me a shill for OpenSRS or any other group.

Sorry, George, my intention was not to denigrate the fine efforts of the
OpenSRS resellers but simply to press the point that, for whatever reason,
there was little representation from all of the other accredited registrars.

Nor any representation from the 240 ccTLDs and other interested parties.

> > > (iv) Working groups, sublists, etc.  As a spin-off from the deleted
> > > domains thread (which, bad enough, seems to have mostly killed that
> > > thread),
<snip>

> Personally, I think the WLS is dead (that's why I've not bothered to
> even reply to some of the "last gasp" posts that have been made, as
> most already see them as self-serving and adding little if anything to
> the decision calculus;

Yes, that was my point.  There's not that much more to say re WLS.

> If there was a working group set up, I think it might be a good thing,
> although I would only participate in it if it had authorization from a
> Greater Power (i.e. ICANN, etc.),

The "greater power" in our case is the Names Council of the DNSO.

Whilst Working Groups have been established in the past, the NC is
working with a Task Force model at present.  Each Task Force contains
one representative from each constituency and one from the GA.  That's
really quite a small, elite group of people.

For example, Phillip Sheppard seems to have his finger in all the pies from
the Business Constituency to the Names Council to the Chair of the Task
Forces to the person drafting the agendas, etc.

Now you will be aware that genuine partipation, like you have in OpenSRS
[discuss-list], requires a group with a critical mass larger than a handful
but not so large as to be unwieldy.  The Task Forces are quite clearly
captured but, even if they weren't, their size is puny.

So we must set up a Working Group.  Terms of Reference?

"A Working Group to consider and, if desirable, improve policies, practices
and procedures with respect to the systems used by registries and registrars
(whether or not they are integrated or separated).

The particular focus of the working group will be to review existing and
proposed systems for registrations, storage, transfers, amendments, expiries
and deletions of domain names.  Related issues might include registrar
accreditation, quality assurance and registrant/whois structures as well as
any contracts, agreements or economic relationships between the parties."

Whilst I'm sure the wording could be improved, I think that gets the general
idea across.

> otherwise it might be the usual thing
> where one comes up with a lot of useful questions and suggestions,
> but they go unanswered and unacknowledged...

No, the Working Group must come up with more than questions or even
suggestions.  It must come up with a reasonable framework to deal with
these important issues properly.

Have faith, George.  With sensible work output, the NC will get interested.

Best Regards
Patrick Corliss

PS    That's the last of my five postings today.  See you tomorrow !!




--
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