Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-02
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:36:38 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> (i) domain-policy archives. According to a message from Chuck
> Gomes, in reply to a question from Patrick Corliss, the
> domain-policy mailing list was shut down by Verisign for legal
> reasons in May 2001.
That's not accurate. Apart from VeriSign's misleading communications,
a significant part of the discussion related to their removal of the list
archives. I requested that they be restored except for the offending
articles. They are an important historical record.
> (iii) Deleted domain name handling. This was certainly the week's
> dominant topic.
As I pointed out in a separate posting, most of this discussion was led by
OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers. Your summary
does not fully specify the respective relationships.
> (iv) Working groups, sublists, etc. As a spin-off from the deleted
> domains thread (which, bad enough, seems to have mostly killed that
Not at all, a poll was held seeking people's views. There was overwhelming
opposition to VeriSign's WLS proposal. So much had been said (as you
explained in your summary) that there wasn't that much to add. What is
needed now is a proper debate on how the current system should be fixed.
You have, however, taken it upon yourself to oppose any suggestion that
the introduction of an Open Working Group would be a possible approach.
> some discussion on working groups and sublists came up,
> including on-list straw polls on whether or not the GA should start
> a working group on the deletion issue, or whether people like the
> WLS. David Farrar writes about these: "Could I suggest both this
> poll and the previous one while well intentioned lead to the GA
> being more dysfunctional. Many do not subscribe here to see 40
> people vote on a list."
David made a valid point in his first sentence. However, my experience shows
that it is impossible to get the Chair to recommend a formal vote unless and
until the membership indicates its views by means of a straw poll. Your own
opposition is ample proof.
If you want a proper vote via the DNSO Secretariat you only need to ask.
However, that's not what you want and comments from David and William
speaking of behalf of the GA membership are no more representative of their
views than are your own personal opinions.
That's why we need to find out what they genuinely think !!
> In two short messages to the GA list, the new Chair and Alt.Chair
> have pointed out what their immediate plans are. These include:
> - Enforce list rules, including the posting limit. (Alexander will
> be the list monitor.)
> - Try to attract discussions and participants from various
> constituencies to the GA.
> - Concerning GA working groups and sublists, a "show traffic, get
> group" policy will be followed for the moment: If sustained
> discussions on some topic become too much, and participants desire
> it, the chairs will try to organize a new mailing list for these.
As it happens, the GA has already indicated -- by means of a motion -- that
they want "procedural" issues taken off the main list and transferred to GA
Rules. Danny improperly failed to forward that on to the DNSO Secretariat.
> - Concerning task forces, there's nothing which prevents the GA
> members from discussing topics. According to the "show traffic,
> get group" policy, "mirror working groups" may be established.
We already have "special purpose" mailing lists. All you need to do is
support them and they will get used.
> The GA rep to task forces has the responsibility to inform task
> force members of the GA's discussions.
With only one GA rep, the Task Forces represent capture.
> Good night,
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html