RE: [wg-review] Comments on WG procedures

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:57 AM

>   the WG.  The WG would then be composed only of opponents of 
> the status
>   quo, who, given free rein, would have come up with some plan that
>   called for a complete infeasible redesign of ICANN, which would be
>   ignored.  

I disagree (It had to happen, I've been agreeing with you too much lately).

>[In fact, we seem to be going down this road at the moment.]

Whilst I agree that a picture of ICANN redesigning itself is unlikely (but,
not completely impossible), it is completely feasible that the DNSO could be
redesigned by ICANN. After all, ICANN gave birth to the DNSO in the first
place. This is especially true since there still exist a few different DNSO
templates (I presented one of them). Many of us have been working on these
for quite a few years, from before DNSO genesis. IMHO, most of the current
DNSO structure problems comes from the fact that, ICANN created the current
DNSO by mashing a few of those templates together, without understanding.
There are some important pieces missing and others don't fit at all/well.

Although I am loath to use analogy, it is like building a car, having pieces
left over, and wondering why it doesn't run right, if at all.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html