Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Thomas,

Ross writes:  I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you 
have described Dan. The TF needs this.

It would be nice to be able to have a sustained back-and-forth discussion on 
certain topics such as Transfers, but this becomes somewhat difficult when 
trying to work within the daily quota on the GA list.  It would be great if 
we could post directly to the Task Forces, but unfortunately they prefer to 
limit our input by filtering our comments through the GA and constituency 
reps.  I have never favored this "filtered" approach, and I would like to ask 
you to consider the possibility of opening up topic-specific mailing lists so 
that we can work in earnest on the issues that we need to address.  

I am aware of the fact that we can post directly to our "reps", but this type 
of off-the-record dialogue does not serve the interests of transparency, nor 
does it stimulate dialogue.

As I see it, we currently need to focus on the following:

WLS
A Uniform Delete Policy
Transfer Procedures
The Board's Bulk WHOIS referral to the DNSO
Hoarding/Warehousing
DNSO reform
ICANN reform
the Escrow initiative
WHOIS policy
Contract enforcement provisions
IDN policy issues
Redemption Grace Period evaluation
New TLD evaluation
Simulataneous Language Translation TF follow-up

This is quite a work-load, and limitations on posting tend to hamper the 
prospects for efficient progress on the subjects at hand.
--
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