[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[discuss] WG instantiation procedures.
Well, I saw some of that last Friday. I thought it looked like the
begining of yet another hi-jacking. What worried me was the WG on gTLDs.
It was much too complete. It makes the WG look like a rubber-stamp
society. That is the last thing we need here. Not only do folks need to
agree to the concept, they need to see the work being done, while it is
in-process, from scratch. If they don't buy into the process, they won't
buy into the results either. That's basic psychology. Without process,
you don't have product.
Javier's failure to gracefully accept the amendment, proposed by Bill,
pretty much nailed it for me. Javier's running a railroad. That's all
the convincing that I needed. From discussions, I wasn't the only one in
the audience that came to the same conclusion and for the same reasons.
The process should include advance publications of intent to for a WG,
purpose, scope, etc.
Application to the Names Council, including Statement of Work.(SOW)
A vote of the General Assembly (GA)
Open call for participants.
Acceptance vote from the GA.
Recommendations from the Names Council to the ICANN BoD (and it had damn
well better be the same document).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 9:58 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [discuss] Individual representation
> >>> One of the other key issues for this entire constituenbcy
> model is htat
> >>> there can be only one for a constituenbcy group. What is
> one vehemently
> >>> disagrees with the formulation of the constituency group
> htat they fall
> >>> under?
> >> probably what happens to minorities in all democracies.
> > They become Road Pizza. This is exactly what we should avoid.
> well, the demagogues of democracy (folk who scream for
> democracy as long as
> it is they who set the rules) who flood mailing lists like
> this will force
> the lowest common denominator system available in our
> culture. sorry if you
> don't like it. they won't either.