Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> It would be nice to be able to have a sustained back-and-forth discussion
on
> certain topics such as Transfers, but this becomes somewhat difficult when
> trying to work within the daily quota on the GA list.  It would be great
if
> we could post directly to the Task Forces, but unfortunately they prefer
to
> limit our input by filtering our comments through the GA and constituency
> reps.  I have never favored this "filtered" approach, and I would like to
ask
> you to consider the possibility of opening up topic-specific mailing lists
so
> that we can work in earnest on the issues that we need to address.
>
> I am aware of the fact that we can post directly to our "reps", but this
type
> of off-the-record dialogue does not serve the interests of transparency,
nor
> does it stimulate dialogue.

The Registrar Constituency has found it useful (and this process is found
elsewhere in the DNSO as well, ie MCs Tf's...) to appoint/elect a drafting
team, that has a good understanding of the issues, to put together a
starting point document that attempts to describe the current consensus as
understood by the drafting team. The document is then release for comment
and modification and then voted on by the larger group.

The initial drafting is what is important. Over the last two or three years
that we have been doing this, we have typically taken the drafting offline
for roughly a 10 -14 day period and then presented that back to the group
via the constituency mailing list. It has worked quite well and when done
well, can actually start the consensus building process before the drafting
is completed (ie - RCOM and Tucows worked together on the initial draft of
the IRDX doc even though we had diametrically opposed views on the issue).

Just some $0.02 from another part of the DNSO...

-rwr

--
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