Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:50:39 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> Noise is stuff which is off topic. The GA list is designed exactly
> for discussing proposals such as WLS.
Very often, on this list, there is diversionary debate, such as this
procedural stuff, which does not advance the discussion on topics such as the
In fact, I already proposed that procedural stuff be debated elsewhere. This
was well supported by the GA membership but ignored by the former Chair.
[ . . . ]
> I do support asking the NC to set up a WG on this issue. If the NC
> agrees then it will be a worthwhile exercise as it will be official.
So we have yet another procedural debate. And, as I remember, you were
opposed to the idea of a straw poll.
Perhaps you could advise how, in the absence of a straw poll, the GA members
can ask our Chair, Thoms Roessler, to set up such a WG ?
> If the NC do not agree then anything the GA sets up is simply a
> dedicated mailing list.
Not at all. Were the GA to set up a WG by its own mandate, it would be a WG
set up by the GA for the purpose. We could even elect our own WG Chair !!!
I really don't see the difference except that you are:
(a) creating an unnecessary obstacle to the GA's own self-determination,
(b) setting a terrible precedent about how things *should* be done.
> We already have seven of these and they have
> all been defunct for three months or more. If people want to they can
> use one of those but history has shown us most people continue to use
> the main GA list.
I'm trying to think of a better term than FUD to express my view about what
you have just said. The special purpose mailing lists got off to a great
start with many people subscribed. I actually provided the numbers some time
However, one or two people were vehemently opposed to the idea and tried their
very best to sabotage the scheme. In the end, the much larger group of people
who were prepared to use these lists became disheartened by the "noise".
I also argued that the lists were best suited to properly structured Working
Groups with prescribed Terms of Reference. This did not happen. I also
argued that seven lists were too many and that the number should be reduced.
None of that suggests that a single Working Group, with clearly defined scope,
would not succeed in co-ordinating interested persons to produce an effective
As would be the case in a WG dedicated towards a review of domain name
registration systems with a clear focus on the problems associated with
transfers, expirations and deletions.
So you agree we should establish such a WG ?
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html