[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] Re: no matter may pass out of the DNSO without the explicit approval of the ga
I don't agree with nor support this recommendation.
But I have a broader question for your contemplation. ICANN is responsible
for the technical management of three things -- not one, but three: names,
numbers, and protocols. I think this suggests that GA would be limiting
it's comments/suggestions to the Names Council's work--I'm only seeking
clarification of your comment, not commenting on it.
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: no matter may pass out of the DNSO without the
explicit approval of the ga
>The basic idea is for the GA to make a formal petition to the ICANN
>to amend the bylaws or articles to give the GA a particular power. And
>that power be that the GA would have to approve any matter that flows
>the DNSO to the ICANN board.
>This would place the GA on an equal footing with the NC in terms of
>creating domain name policies.
I agree on the need of redefining the role of the GA in order to raise
its importance in the process, but I just do not see in the current
situation how ICANN could take into consideration this kind of petition.
If we were working, and producing useful DNS-related contributions, we
could reasonably ask to count more, but if the debate is continuing on
these topics and with this climate, ICANN is more likely to be tempted
to scrap the GA altogether than give it more power.
In summary, your idea is good, but there's some prior work to be done in
order to make the GA useful, before making it important.