Re: [wg-review] DNSO Study

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Ya but we may get our cake and eat it too, let us let Danny(never let us down
before)Younger devise the plan we all know he can, and besides they have to listen
to him now.  Come On Danny we are counting on you!

Sincerely,

Sotiris wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I find myself in complete agreement with you Rod (and this is not the first
> time!).
>
> Notwithstanding any further studies or any other loops and dips, the WG Review
> will be sending its proposal on Resolutions 01.28 & 01.29 to the BoD by the
> deadline of April 16.
>
> If anyone has any serious problems with the proposal, let them speak up now.
> There is a whole week (which in ICANN time translates to more than enough) to
> discuss it.
>
> For five weeks, the current 121 members of this List have been free to offer
> suggestions, draft proposals, make comments, etc...  Instead, many of them chose
> to join the name-calling and largely dead-end discussions on the GA list.
>
> "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
>
> > I could support further study as a basis to come up with solutions to the
> > many identified problem areas within the DNSO (notwithstanding that the
> > WG-Review will provide timely recommendations on some issues and that we
> > should allow that process to wind down first). I also agree that the GA
> > Chair's proposal is not bottom up, and it should be.
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Eric Dierker
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:02 PM
> > > To: babybows.com
> > > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wg-review] DNSO Study
> > >
> > >
> > > Danny,
> > >
> > > you have once again written in a most calm, well researched and persuasive
> > > manner.  What you are proposing is taking all of the hard bottoms
> > > up work and
> > > having the top redo it before even submitting it.  You want to
> > > kill it, that is
> > > how to do it.  You want to hurt ICANN further this is how to do it.
> > >
> > > The powers to be, DoC and all USG are looking for bottoms up
> > > transparency in
> > > keeping with the white papers, not top down appointed boards
> > > meeting in private.
> > >
> > > How could all those people you mention do a better job of what we did in
> > > reflecting internetstakeholders desires.
> > >
> > > I reread your post yet another time, you clearly are talking
> > > about all of you
> > > guys meeting and changing our report before it gets submitted.
> > >
> > > Absolutely NOT.  Of course the decision should be up for a
> > > consensus discussion,
> > > with our wonderful chair leading us we will do the right thing.
> > >
> > > Sincerely
> > >
> > >
> > > "babybows.com" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Posted to the public forum:
> > > >
> > > > I thank the ICANN Board for the opportunity to provide input
> > > regarding ways
> > > > by which we may come to improve operations of the DNSO as it is
> > > constituted
> > > > today, and further appreciate the opportunity to provide
> > > suggestions which
> > > > may result in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major
> > > changes in
> > > > its functioning.  Having been a participant in the Review
> > > Working Group, I
> > > > am appreciative of the concerted effort that was made to respond to the
> > > > Board's request for a general review of the DNSO, and I look forward to
> > > > seeing the final report of this working group.
> > > >      My concern is that while ample time and resources were
> > > dedicated to the
> > > > first phase of the review project (ten months to determine the
> > > diagnosis),
> > > > limited time (5 weeks) has been allowed for the most important
> > > phase of the
> > > > project (solutions).  It is my humble opinion that a more comprehensive
> > > > study is called for, as the possible restructuring of a Supporting
> > > > Organization is not a matter to be taken lightly.  To the same
> > > degree that
> > > > the at-Large study required full and proper funding, as well as a
> > > > blue-ribbon panel of committee members, so too should a study
> > > regarding the
> > > > future of the DNSO be properly convened with ample resources,
> > > well-respected
> > > > committee members and an appropriate timeline in which to complete its
> > > > mission.
> > > >      I propose the following:  an initial committee consisting of the
> > > > current and former chairs of the General Assembly, the current
> > > and former
> > > > chairs of the Names Council, the chair of the Review Working
> > > Group, the NC
> > > > Liaison to the Review Working Group, the Chair of the Review Task Force,
> > > > ICANN legal counsel, and the Head of the DNSO Secretariat.
> > > This Committee
> > > > shall act upon the findings of the review process and propose necessary
> > > > changes.
> > > >      The draft report of this committee shall then be submitted to an
> > > > independent panel for rigorous review (by experts who are
> > > anonymous to the
> > > > committee and which shall be selected by the ICANN Board).
> > > Upon conclusion
> > > > of this review, the committee will then respond to the panel's
> > > > recommendations with appropriate revisions, and finally submit a
> > > > consensus-based report for public comment prior to submission
> > > to the ICANN
> > > > Board.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your consideration,
> > > > Danny Younger
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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

--
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