[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[discuss] Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Meeting Webcast
I am posting this here to the discuss, but there are some points I
feel the members of this list should probably hear and discuss.
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:10:40 -0800, Ellen Rony <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>I have just returned from the Names Council meeting and will type up some
>notes as soon as I get my breath, but I wanted to address this.
>The room was relatively small, i.e., would seat about 60 people to
>capacity, but the screen for posting email comment was quite large,
>stationed at the front of the room. There were very few realtime comments
>submitted by email during the Administrative meeting. Nonetheless, the NC
>members did look and did address a few of the comments. If there had been
>lots of comments, the system would absolutely not work because it's
>apparent that it is logistically difficult to conduct a physical meeting
>and address email concerns, all the while trying to deal with the
>teleconference aspects (i.e., the NC members that were participating by
>telephone and were having a hard time hearing the comments of other members
>and audience participants).
>There will be a committee (initially called Working Group D) that is going
>to look at such procedures, and this is an area that needs to be worked
>out, but my observation is that progress was made in this area because the
>NC was certainly aware of the email comments. Volunteers, anyone?
I tuned in to the webcast, and I have to say I was much more pleased
with this meeting than I have been in the past with the ICANN
meetings, and what appeared to be commitment from the provisional NC
to continue and expand on online participation.
This was a breath of fresh air, and the provisional NC needs to be
commended for this, provided they follow through with action now.
I'd say that ICANN can take some pointers here. The sky didn't fall
in by letting people listen in even to the executive session.
Many valid points and compelling arguments were brought up by the
participants. I believe Ellen and Karl both made some very good
points and arguments to back them up. I'd like to see some expansion
on those points myself.
I was somewhat troubled by comments made by Amadeu (who otherwise I
found to have been most fair and indeed made many very valid points)
about some of the issues Karl and others brought up. Basically it was
a "take it to ICANN" type answer. Someone else (whose name escapes me
at the moment) brought up a point that the NC might strive to be
"better" than ICANN and indeed make recommendations to ICANN beyond
the scope of what ICANN has delegated to them, such as recognition of
Constituencies, as something that directly affects their ability to
fulfill their mandate to be a tool of broad consensus. I think this
is something the NC should definitely take under serious
consideration, and would help them establish their legitimacy with
some of the disenfranchised. Some of the NC members even expressed
personal support for the Individuals Constituency and the IDNO effort
to fill that role.
I think this meeting has left me in a cautiously optimistic state of
mind. Very cautiously however.
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: email@example.com Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.