Re: [wg-review] The Future

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:29:25 -0500, Babybows.com wrote:

>  We appreciate the efforts being made to have our Chair present in future
>  discussions with the Names Council as we move forward into this "new
phase
>  to cooperate".  I'm sure that all of us are eager to have our comments
>  become "part of the prioritization process of items to be returned to the
NC
>  to be considered as part of the DNSO Business Plan".  We appreciate the
fact
>  that "Review implementation is part of the Business Plan", and that
>  implementing even more studies through a "new Task Force with new terms
of
>  reference" is clearly preferable to actually getting some real bottoms-up
>  consensus-based conclusions from the Review WG.  We have taken note of
the
>  fact that "at the closure of the ICANN Public Comment period the task of
the
>  Review WG will be complete", and I'm sure we all agree that this was the
>  best way to "ensure coherent input to the ICANN Board".  Assuredly, we
>  clearly understand that "full participation in this implementation phase
is
>  envisioned" and that "it is understood that the structure of
participation
>  will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO working groups!"
>  We are delighted that a Task Force Approach is to be the model of the
>  future, as the filtering and the timely and cooperative performance so
far
>  has been a stellar model to which all should aspire.  We can only hope
that
>  future task forces also will issue such well-considered single-author
>  recommendations... after all, why implement any changes when one only
needs
>  to implement more studies about everything?  Sorry, that was an
>  exaggeration...
---------------

I don't know just how much of an exaggeration that is--pk

----------------

>the Review Task Force did not recommend that the Names
>  Council be studied.  I wonder why?
>
------------------

Rhetorical question?  Of course it is.  And we have a study going for the
@Large, now one for the feasibility of domain name holders constituency of
those of us not in business on the net, or those of you not big enough to
feel represented by the "Biggies Club".  No need for a study of the GA, it's
just a social gathering that makes a nice webcast.  NC?  Naw, it does 'just
fine' the way it is.

This may be inapropriate, but I'm gonna say it.  I am angry!  I feel like
the time I spent here could have been better spent in my Shakespeare course,
or something.  I have learned a lot, most of it good.  I'm not leaving until
the wg is closed.  I am, none the less, very disappointed in the report.  I
know that many of you who've been participating could have been putting the
time to very productive use elsewhere.  I still feel that we need to find
ways to make ICANN fulfill it's greater mission, which is (as I understand
it) to phase internet control out of USG control into international
autonomous being.  No small feat.  

I hope everyone who participated puts their opinions on the comment site

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-review-report-17feb01.htm
  
End of 'rant and rave'.

Phil King in Butte MT

>  
>  
>  
>  
>  --
>  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
>  


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/


--
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