[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.
Mark and all,
Good points here Mark and also some good questions. These
questions should be clarified as they are answered by the GA
and the "Constituency" groups. Oooops! The constituencies
are all not completely formed yet! (Jeff Smacks his forehead)
SO, well I guess than that idea is nixed, eh? So It looks
like the GA will need to approve and answer any of these questions
themselves without "Constituency" input of any kind! Now doesn't
that sound so far and in keeping with the DNSO Charter? Bylaws???
To make a long post/story short, it looks like some re-thinking
and priorities need to be set here.
Now for some ideas on how to address some of these Questions and
comments that Mark so aptly provided us with... (See below Marks
Cthulhu's Little Helper wrote:
> On 30 June 1999, Javier <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Excellent analysis of the situation.
> >The compromise of group 1 with group 2, in the pNC, has been to create a
> >committe that has to come out, within three weeks, with procedures for the
> >operation of working groups. As soon as those procedures are in place, the
> >new working groups will comply with the procedures determined by the
> >committee. Once the committee reports, the GA will have to be consulted
> >before the procedures are finally approved, as with anything else that
> >comes out of a working group.
> To facilitate this process, could you clarify a few points regarding
> this group (which is Working Group D, if I'm not mistaken):
> 1) Who is currently heading this WG, if anyone,
Good question. No one is the right answer. After the working groups
are formed, I would SUGGEST that they have a VOTE among themselves
to determine who heads each working group. Oh, and yes Javier,
I know you hate VOTING and a democratic process....
> 2) Who should be contacted if one wishes to join this WG
Good point. Well PNC, Can you provide an answer? And of course
any answer you make will be challenged as it is questionable that
any of you are legitimate NC/PNC members, as none of you were
ELECTED. My suggestion:
Have a VOTE on whom should be on the PNC/NC first, by the GA,
and than ask for volunteers for contact points for WG's. Than have the
GA vote on approval of each of those volunteers for approval by the
DNSO as a whole.
> 3) When and via what media the first(?) meeting of this WG will occur
This should be determined by the WG chair, which should be elected
by the WG members.
> 4) The exact date by which this WG must have completed its report
Again for each WG, that should be determined by a cooperation
between the WG and the NC/PNC, once an election of the
NC/PNC has been completed by the GA.
> 5) In what manner the WG D report will be presented to, and approved by,
> the pDNC and the GA? (of particular interest, since there are no
> procedures established yet. We need a 'bootstrapping' process of
> some form.)
I would suggest that both is required in order to have a check an balance.
The overriding decision should be the GA however by majority VOTE.
Oooops! Javier, there is that worked again, VOTE....
> >This will, of course, not make everybody happy, and the criticism (some of
> >it in the form of personal insult) will continue in this list, but what is
> >at this point very clear is that anybody who wants to participate
> >constructively in the process can do it by either participating in the GA
> >or in the working groups.
> ...which are good points. To further clarify, could you state:
> 6) Whether WG D will be tasked with determining the process the GA will
> use to nominate representatives to sit on the Board, as described in
> section (d) of the General Assembly definition at
> 7) Could you confirm that the GA will be fully constituted by the time
> the WG D report is presented so that it may be agreed upon?
A very GOOD question Mark. My guess is that the PNC/NC does not
WANT the GA to be in place anytime soon until all of the most
relative decisions are made. Of course this relegates the GA as
nearly worthless, but what the heck, right?
> ...and finally, would you be willing to address the other issues I raised
> in my last e-mail?
Not likely. But also a good question.... >;)
> Thank you.
> Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
> firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.idno.org
> Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
> San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208