<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Help - Attn DNSO Secretariat, DNSO Archives Missing or not resolving/forbidden
I have a problem with general connectivity across the Atlantic. This may be
the problem. I can't get to freeler.nl either.
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
|> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 6:42 PM
|> To: Eric@Business.com.VN
|> Cc: ga@dnso.org; DNSO Secretariat
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Help - Attn DNSO Secretariat, DNSO
|> Archives Missing or
|> not resolving/forbidden
|>
|>
|> 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
|>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|