Re: [ga] Motion # 1

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

I agree with Thomas that members of the GA should be contributing to 
discussion on the issues of WHOIS bulk access, deletes and the WLS proposal.  
However...

The bulk WHOIS issue was referred to the DNSO on Jan.22 and remanded to a 
Task Force chaired by Marilyn Cade (that in typical task force fashion has 
done nothing to attend to the issue).

The Board next called for a comprehensive DNSO review of the issue of deletes 
and the WLS proposal, and this topic was again remanded to another task force 
chaired by Marilyn Cade (and other than one comment put forth by Thomas and 
apparently ignored by all other task force members, this task force also has 
done nothing to address the issue).

For some reason which I can't fathom, Thomas likes the task force concept and 
has advocated on its behalf in the Names Council teleconferences.  I view 
such task forces as an insult to the General Assembly, and no more than an 
oppressive tool that denies us our right to full and unfiltered participation 
in policy discussions within an appropriate list environment.

By eliminating open working groups, the Council has killed off effective 
member participation in relevant discussions.  We cannot post to these closed 
task force lists, and if our "representatives" choose not to forward our 
relevant comments (as has been the case) there remains not much incentive for 
us to contribute. 

When you look at some of these task forces you will note that half of the 
appointed members never bother to participate, and that "discussion" is 
almost non-existent.  Less than half of the members of the Council are even 
subscribed to the GA list, and GA discussions almost never make their way 
onto a task force list.  

Most of you will recall the efforts of the Review Working group.  That 
effort, within three weeks, produced 1500 comments and a comprehensive 
document.  What has the transfers task force accomplished in the last three 
weeks?  4 comments.  How many comments have there been on the .org RFP?  4 
comments.  How many task force comments have there been on the WLS proposal?  
1 comment.  

This is pathetic.  

The problem is not a lack of interest on the part of the GA.  The problem is 
that we are being denied the open working groups which made it possible for 
us participate in a meaningful fashion.  If Thomas believes that we should be 
participating to a greater degree in a discussion of the "relevant issues", 
let him start advocating for the return of the Working Group or the 
elimination of the Council that has denied us our participatory rights.

As I do not wish to exceed the quota of five daily postings, let me add that 
I support the text of Jamie Love's motion #1 so that our Chair can duly 
record my name as being in support of holding the vote.


--
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