Re: [ga] Help - Attn DNSO Secretariat, DNSO Archives Missing or not resolving/forbidden

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eric and all assembly members,

  I also noticed this earlier today.  It seems like the archives that Eric
listed below are still either missing, not resolving or returning a
"Forbidden" error message...  Would the secretariat please
look into this?

Eric Dierker wrote:

>  http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnso/WGs.html
>
>  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/archives.html
>
> In that I do not want to go shopping or wrap gifts, or proofread fifty
> pages of websites, I was looking up, through my archives, some old
> WG-Review documentation that I thought may be helpful regarding
> Transfers and the at-large.
>
> Alas, I was thwarted in my effort as all of the above resolve in error
> or a circle.
>
> So then I went to:
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/
> And alas it was forbidden.
>
> So then I went to:
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html
> And I found what I was looking for.
>
> So before you read this could one of you great soles help straighten out
> those previous links so that common researchers can find what they
> need.  I also believe closed NC list should be open to the public.
>
> But here is what Karl wrote a year ago as a Christmas present to the
> WG-Review and I believe it most closely resembles my intention for this
> noble body;
>
>        > 1. Objectives of the DNSO Review Working Group
>        >
>        > The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
>        > the performance of ICANN's DNSO and to propose structural
>        > and procedural changes that will help ICANN's Domain Name
>        > Supporting Organization fulfill its mission of becoming a
> bottom-up
>        > policy coordination body.
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        I have a bit of trouble with the limited powers implied by the
> word
>        "coordination".
>
>        The DNSO as a body is responsible not merely for "coordination"
> but also
>        for the *origination* of policy pertaining to DNS.  The
> initiative for
>        such policy might come from within the DNSO itself, by
> unsolicited input
>        from the net community, or by reference from the Board of
> Directors or a
>        question from another SO.
>
>        > The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
>        > the responses of DNSO stakeholders' and to vindicate that DNSO
>        > would be a structure that will include all of those who will be
> affected
>        > by the DNS of the future as well as the current Netizens.
>
>        We ought to dispense the concept of "stakeholders" - particularly
> as some
>        consider that concept to be one of the reasons why the DNSO is
> stumbling.
>        The DNS impacts everyone on the Internet.  That first sentence
> should be
>        reworded to begin "The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is
> to
>        evaluate the responses of interested persons" ...
>
>        > 2. Authority - How this WG has been proposed and created.
>        >
>        > On July 14 the ICANN Board requested the Names Council
>        > to submit its report on DNSO review in its Yokohama meeting
>        > in July 2000. The report was supposed to be due on Oct. 13
>        > and it has been deferred.
>
>        I might also suggest that any body has an intrinsic power to
> examine its
>        own structures as long as that effort doesn't interfere with its
> primary
>        duties.
>
>        Thus, in my opinion, the DNSO has always had its own ability to
> initiate
>        self-review and to make recommendations for improvement.
>
>        > 3. Procedures and approaches
>        >
>        > Review Working Group will explore the concerns listed below
>        > by online discussion mostly and if it is needed this group will
>
>        > organize a face-to-face meeting before or after ICANN meeting.
>
>        At this point I'd like to inject a plea for semi-formalized
> processes,
>        along the lines of those suggested by Mark Langston, to keep this
>
>        discussion from going off into the weeds.
>
>        > * The DNSO constituency Structure : Examine the structure and
>        >    propose amendments that will ensure balanced representation
>        >    of all stakeholder interests in an open, and transparent
> process.
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>        ...
>        > In the long term, DNSO Review Committee will be responsible for
>
>        > enhancing more trustworthy working environment in the DNSO
>        > and for ensuring all the stakeholders' voices should be HEARD.
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>        Again, that loaded word "stakeholders" - we ought not to
> pre-judge who has
>        a "stake" but rather let people decide for themselves whether
> they feel
>        that they have an interest they want to protect.  Rather than
> forcing
>        people into pre-conceived, and arbitrary "constituencies" we
> ought to
>        allow people to aggregate (and de-aggregate) into fluid
> coalitions.
>
>        To that end I'd suggest that the last sentence in the above
> quoted
>        paragraph should be:
>
>         "In the long term, DNSO Review Committee will be responsible for
>
>         creating a more trustworthy working environment in the DNSO, for
>
>         ensuring that all who desire to fully participate in the DNSO
> may do so,
>         and ensuring that the points of view and opinions of all who
> believe that
>         they may be affected by DNSO decisions may be fairly heard and
> fairly
>         considered."
>
>                        --karl--
>
> My best to Karl and Mark on this almost anniversary of this fine
> contribution.  So many have worked so hard to try and make this work
> that I do not believe we should give up.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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