RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Roeland,

Before you go firing off letters to congress critters I'd like to see some
consensus in the GA on the topic.

On the issue of monies, the GA can do what every other DNSO constituency
does:

   o find someone you trust
   o have that person open a trust account
   o elect officers (chair, co-chair, and treasurer)
   o levy dues
   o spend the money in the interest of the GA.
   o report how monies are spent, leave an accountable paper
     trail for the public to evaluate the good faith effort.

There is nothing preventing the GA from doing the above.

-rick


On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> |> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:58 AM
>
> |> You indicate that a cannon is necessary... what do you propose?
>
> Proper escalation requires successive steps via;
> DNSO/GA -> DNSO/NC -> ICANN/BoD -> USG/DOC -> USG/Congress.
> At each step, relevent issues need to be surfaced, for that step, and as
> that step's non-responsiveness is documented, issues are prepared for the
> next step. One of the current problems are that the last two steps are
> somewhat preoccupied with the current shooting-war. Therefore, issues have
> to be refined that are relevent to the context of the current focus of those
> steps.
>
> There's proposal somewhere around here that a collective document be sent to
> selected Congress-critters. Many of you, that have been reading me since the
> NSI Domain-Policy list, may recall that the last thing I EVER wanted to get
> involved here was the US Congress. But, that was during the beginings of the
> dot-com daze and I was afraid that the Internet would become a political
> foozball (Clinton era). Well, those days are gone, times have changed, and I
> don't really see another way to go. We've already gone down all of the
> rat-holes (some of them, 2-3 times), and they're all dry. There is no cheese
> at the center of this maze, not even the scent, and they're about to drop us
> into the ALSO maze, with equal probability of getting flim-flammed (dead
> certainty).
>
> I might point out that if we started such a collective document that it will
> find resistance and folks would try and disrupt the work, or add poisoned
> riders to it. I don't think that we can succesfully build such a document on
> this list. We're talking about politicking in the only place that matters,
> as far as the ICANN is concerned, the US Congress. Also, this stuff takes
> money and the ICANN won't let the GA have any.
>
> MHSC has some assets that can be used, like DNSO.NET. However, I am entering
> into a very busy time and it looks like I'll be travelling a lot this month.
> Therefore, I won't have the time to put into this, other than reviewing
> progress. I also may be moving my servers sometime in Jan02. However, I can
> provide DNS for DNSO.NET anywhere else that suits the purpose, like a
> 3rd-level registry. I also have a SUsE Linux box (falcon.mhsc.com), with
> sendmail and majordomo, that I don't have time to configure.
>
> There's more, but no time, something just came up here.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>


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