DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

Joop Teernstra wrote on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:48:56
>At 07:43 29/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> > I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or direction for the
> > names council to be involved in the formation process of any 
> > but rather a directive that the process be one of self-organization by 
> > prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
> > handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition is 
> >by
> > interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.
> >
>Formally, I can only agree with Ken here.

May I respectfully disagree with both.
One of the major criticism I (personally) move to the DNSO, and to the NC as 
"governing structure", is the lack of responsibility it takes in fulfilling 
its mission of advising the ICANN Board on Domain Name matters.
While it is formally true that the NC cannot, according to the bylaws, 
create/destroy Constituencies, it is true that it could and should put 
forward recommendations on this subject.
Every time I hear that the DNSO/NC is not responsible/authorized/qualified 
to act/advise/recommend on matters related to Domain Names, the question 
comes instinctively: "Then, what is it for?".

As a matter of fact, though, the NC *is in the process of creating a WG*, 
which is a good approach: the WG will come up with recommendations, that 
will be brought to the Board (via the NC).

>Unfortunately the Board has seen fit to dodge the issue time and again.
>The GA of the DNSO has requested the NC to create a working group for DNSO
>I understand that this is now in the process of implementation.
>The danger here is, that the (probably endless) discussions in such a WG
>would just provide the excuse to the Board to further postpone any decision
>on the petition of the IDNO constituency that has been in sitting there
>for over a year.

IMHO (but I may be wrong), the Board has no intention, now or in the future, 
to take into account "the petition of the IDNO constituency", for reasons 
that we have discussed already at length.

The question is therefore how to proceed, if we want to make progress.
Again IMHO, I think that an official WG, created by the NC (as it is the 
case) will be more effective of a task force created by the GA.
I was in favour of the latter, when I did not think that the former could 
have been done in short time.
Of course, if the WG becomes active in few days, why should we not take the 


Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>