RE: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

Danny, 

I am going to try to be brief here in my comments:

1)  All of these items are being prepared for the final report (which will
be available for public comment as well);
2)  I was so hopeful after your last submission that you would provide
something more of substance in your e-mail, but as usual, you have reverted
to arguing about process.

This is a ploy to you and to the rest of the Internet community and I said
this no less than ten times in Shanghai as well.  Would someone please give
substantive comments to the document itself?  Is there anyone out there that
can comment on the substance of what has been proposed.  Aside from a few
registrars and registries who are commenting on the substance in the report,
there have been no other comments on SUBSTANCE.  The GA has been silent on
the substance (although loud on procedure).  The GA has been loud on the
things they do not like going on with some ofthe Registrars, but silent on
how to solve it.

Everyone likes to complain about process, but few people put their money
where their mouth is.  We now have a document out for public comment and how
many comments of substance do we have?

Sorry this is so negative, but people worked hard on the Report and we will
work harder to make sure it reflects any feedback we receive, but that
assumes people will provide feedback.

Thanks.  



-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:17 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: mcade@att.com
Subject: [ga] Ignoring the Rules


Marilyn and members of the Transfers Task Force, 

The current Names Council Rules of Procedure include a section entitled 
"Disputes and Role of an Interim Report" which stipulates that an interim 
report should contain: 

(a) an abstract of all proposals which achieved a meaningful level of 
support, 
(b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying rationale

(c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the proposal 
(d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the 
proposal 
(e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they 
would be borne 
(f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal

and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities. 

The interim report that has been prepared by the Task Force is grossly 
deficient in that it does not attend to the above requirements.  This is
also 
not the first time that such an interim report has been prepared in such a 
lax manner -- one has to wonder if there a particular reason why the Task 
Force can't abide by the guidelines set down by the Council?  I get the 
impression that you are more interested in meeting artificial deadlines (a 
final submission by Amsterdam) than in actually doing a thorough and 
responsible job.

If members of the Names Council aren't willing to abide by their own Rules
of 
Procedure, why then should registrars abide by any set of rules that you
seek 
to foist upon them?
--
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