Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:42:32 +0000, Matthew Pemble wrote:

> I think it is pretty clear that there is a general consensus that the
> Verisign WLS proposal is "a bad thing (TM)" (i.e. not even Chuck has
> voted in favour of it.)  However, there is a significant difference
> between that and any consensus on what system(s) should be put into
> place for domain deletion and competitive re-registration.

Agreed and that needs a deeper debate than we can do by Friday.  As it only
takes a few minutes to subscribe to the [ga-sys] mailing list, I think Thomas
is being precious by saying there is insufficient time.

However, such a move cannot be achieved without general consensus which we do
not have at the moment (at least without support from William X. Walsh).

> There have been some good statements of both the current position and of
> potential ways to remedy both the overloading problem Verisign claim and
> the uncertainty and suspicion generated by the lack of timely
> deletions.  I do not have enough experience of this community to know
> whether a focused working group is a better way to generate consensus
> than a general discussion,

A general discussion works very well on particular, specific issues such as
the Verisign proposal.  It is not satisfactory in a debate covering a wider
scope as other issues come along and "crowd out" one debate in favour of
another.

This is because more people are NOT interested in the relevant issue than ARE
interested in it.  IOW, some are interested in registration systems, some in
structural reform of constituencies, some in UDRP, some in outreach, some in
internal procedures, some in country codes, some in technical issues, etc.

In my experience, unless dedicated working groups are established, most people
lose interest and start talking about something else.

> or how any such group would (should) be
> constituted and organised.

Deciding how to structure such groups is one of the problems.  Most people
seem to agree that the membership of any working group should be open to
anyone who expresses an interest.  My view is that a Terms of Reference needs
to be decided by the General Assembly as a whole.  The WG will then report
back its findings for review and determination by the main body.  This is
standard procedure internationally.

It is probably also necessary for a working group to have a Chair to monitor
the debate and try to garner consensus within the group.

> This inexperience is also why I did not vote
> in the GA Chair election, having insufficient knowledge of the
> participants.

The four candidates are, in my order of preference for the position of Chair:

(1)    Alexander Svensson, a former list monitor and a mature and sensible
person,
(2)    Kristy McKee, another former list monitor, honest, idealistic and
technically quite competent,
(3)    Thomas Roessler, the list manager of the ICANN Europe mailing list and
a bit of a hard-liner, and
(4)    Eric Dierker, a prior candidate who upsets many people with his
childish antics.

> Perhaps, once announced, the newly elected Chair could organise a formal
> poll on formation of a working party and which members of the GA would
> be willing to participate?

The succesful candidate will find that they need to gain the approval of the
GA generally.  This is almost impossible so they will have their work cut out.
Should they try to "organise" the members they are likely to lose more than
they gain.

> The issue of deletions certainly appears to
> be the current main focus of the list.

Certain issues become topical from time to time.  However, results are
generally only temporary and more substantive reform is almost impossible
to achieve.

I hope this clarifies the situation for any new list members.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss



--
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