RE: [registrars] Questions for Amsterdam

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Thomas - 

I couldn't agree more with your statements. I have long been of the
opinion that "no proposal, no discussion". In other words, it is
impossible for a group like our to arrive at a decision unless there is
first a proposal brought forth for consideration. There is a big
difference between "Should we have a meeting next week?" and "I propose
that we have a meeting next Friday @ 2:00pm.". One invites opinion, the
other invites conclusion.

Answering the basic question of what our governing processes are needs
to be an issue of the highest priority of the constituency.

My proposal is that we make it so.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:23 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Questions for Amsterdam
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> due to the fact that I cannot participate on todays call I would 
> like to put forth some questions for further discussion in Amsterdam. 
> 
> All of this questions are related to the RCs bylaws and the 
> process of policy-development. Knowing that there are a lot 
> of interessting topics 
> in the pipe right now and a lot of issues that we should deal 
> with to assure a a safe future (i.e. funding, .org) I still 
> would like to discuss 
> this questions. In my believes a well defined and good 
> working process is essential for an effectiv and efficient 
> policy-development. This issue has been picked up by varios 
> members on various occasion and a lot of discussion how a 
> process could look like has taken place. Thought of all the 
> work that has been done on this subject (see all the mails 
> from Mike, Ross, Bruce Tonkin, Rob Hall ... the list would be 
> endless) it is a pity that no final process has been achieved.
> 
> Please note that I have not answered the questions myself. I 
> didn't, having in mind, that it might be a good idea that if 
> this should become a topic in Amsterdam people could forward 
> complete positioning papers regarding 
> these or related question to the list. Comparing and 
> evaluating well tought 
> papers might be more efficient as discussing only one proposal.
> 
> As a final remark I want to mention that I used the word 
> voting on purpose because I don't believe that consensus can 
> be achieved in an 
> enviroment of competition. This might be against the ICANN 
> spirit but I just can't help myself on this point ;)
> 
> Questions:
> 
> Process:
> - how can an issue be elevated to a topic of general interest ?
> - how long can a topic be discussed before a decision has to 
> be found ?
> - how long shall a decision be valid ?
> 
> Voting rules:
> - what participation must be reached for a quorum ?
> - what majority must be reached to finalize a decision ?
> 
> RC Discussion: 
> - can there be straw polls to direct the course of discussion ?
> 
> Representation of the RC within ICANN
> - are the NC reps obliged to reflect all positions of the RC
>   and if yes how will this be achieved ?
> - are RC members working in ICANN working groups bound to
>   "decisions" prior made from the RC ?
> 
> Best
> 
> tom
> 
> -
> 
> Thomas Keller
> 
> Domain Services
> Schlund + Partner AG
> Erbprinzenstr. 4 - 12                                    Tel. 
> +49-721-91374-534
> 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany                                 Fax  
> +49-721-91374-215
> http://www.schlund.de                                    
> tom@schlund.de      
> 
>