Re: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

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

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Regardless of whether you like Danny's choice of words or not, it appears to
> me that what he is saying is probably quite accurate, at least with regard
> to the fact the report is primarily one prepared by Philip.  I know for a
> fact that the gTLD Registry Constituency submitted fairly significant
> comments to the TF only to be largely ignored.  There was not even any
> effort to discuss the points we put forward let alone consider any of them
> in the task force report.

  This does not seem to sound very positive with respects to the NC or
the Structure TF.  In fact, as Danny, myself and others have purported
a WG approach would seem to have been a better method of approaching
the perceived structure problems with the DNSO...

>
>
> Unfortunately, this has become the standard operating procedure in the NC.

Yes very unfortunate! :(  It would seem so much so that perhaps each
constituency should take a vote on the whole of this TF's Report as a
way of letting the NC know where each constituency stands on this
Report.

>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:23 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)
>
> Philip Sheppard has published his latest version of the Structure TF report
> (v6) at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00013.doc
>
> It's still a piece of garbage, and it does no more than incorporate the
> IPC's
> comment that no policy recommendations should come from the ALSO separately.
>
> It's time for our GA rep to react to this travesty.
>
> The ICANN Board requested comments on the ALSC Final report from the NC
> within 45 days of their November 15 announcement:  "Further resolved
> [01.126]
> that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final Report from the Internet
> community as a whole, including the DNSO Names Council, the ASO Address
> Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests that any such comments be
>
> submitted within 45 days from the date of this Resolution;"
>
> Why are we participating in a bogus analysis of the ALM which is well past
> the deadline for comments, instead of looking at the restructuring proposals
>
> for the DNSO which have been put on the table?  Why aren't we also looking
> at
> the restructuring of ICANN in light of the movement toward a ccSO?  Why is
> the TF avoiding these other issues and only acting to attack the ALM?
>
> Does our GA rep support the position taken in the document that "There will
> be one additional at-large member than the status quo of five."?!!
>
> This is a call to arms.  Either you start fighting back for the future of
> the
> At-Large or you put on your kneepads and grovel before the BC and IPC.  The
> choice is yours.
> --
> 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
> --
> 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