[ga] Our Agenda -- Create or Disrupt ?

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

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:22:49 -0600, Don Brown wrote:

> Since NetSol has most of the expired domain names to be deleted, and
> since SNAP appears to be a bedfellow of NetSol/Registry, and since
> SNAP and NetSol/Registry are intent upon the WLS proposal, and since
> there is not a policy or procedure as mentioned in 3.7.5 of the RAA,
> and since no one monitors NetSol/Registry, can we at least "dream"
> about the "possibility" of some hanky-pank?

Hi Don

Can VeriSign (the Registry or the Registrar) ever be expected to act in the
best interests of its domain name holders?  Probably not.  It is a business
defined as "an undertaking conducting its affairs with a view to profit".

> There is certainly a profit motive, but there are a lot of other
> things wrong with this picture, as well. The most glaring "wrong
> thing" is that this Assembly does not have the leadership, purpose,
> mission or agenda to do anything.

Well it does have some of that.  It's purpose is to assist ICANN to develop
domain name policy.  What it lacks is a prescribed methodolgy by which that
might be done.

And without such a methodology, "sound" leadership is essential.  However,
imo, Thomas was elected for his "strong" leadership potential.

In going for "strong" rather than "sound", I think they chose the wrong
candidate.

> Even when the majority favors a work group, the Chair dictatorially
> kills it on the basis of procedure.

I'm not at all sure why Thomas tried to kill off the notion of a working
group.  He certainly did not have a mandate from his electorate to do that.

In view of the opposition to a formal vote, it is impossible to gain enough
support from the GA membership to even call for a vote.  Nevertheless, I'd say
that if a motion (such as outlined below) were put to a vote of the General
Assembly, it would be stongly endorsed by the membership.

MOTION
"That an Open Working Group on domain name registration systems be set up by
the General Assembly to address the problems associated with transfers,
expirations and deletions."

However, I don't really think it was "on the basis of procedure".

> If people want to work on a
> proposal to submit to the Assembly for consensus, what could possibly
> be wrong with letting them pursue that mission? The Assembly doesn't
> have to accept it, but, on the other hand, it may be a product which
> the Assembly can support. Of course, we will never know, when those
> efforts are thwarted/prevented.

Exactly.

> Is this an Assembly of peers with
> common interests or is this a Dictatorship?

What it is is a motley crew of independent cowboys who are more interested in
having a good stoush (the "disrupt" agenda) that in trying to work together to
advance the development of domain name policy (the "create" agenda).

As most of us know, the black agenda is supported by corporate interests.

> Conversely, I always asked them what they thought we should do.

In this case, what do YOU think we should do?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss



--
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