[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] Agenda proposal
R. Gaetano wrote:
>Agreed in principle, but for the time being that vote was the only measure
>that we have.
>To have new individuals joining the DNSO and promoting the cause of the
>individual DN holders constituency will be more effective than claiming that
>the previous pollings were inaccurate.
>In fact, if I understand well the results of the latest elections in the
>IDNO, you had only 35 voting members, a large part of which claim that they
>don't want to have any connection with a corrupted and captured DNSO +
>ICANN. Maybe the real problem lies there.
The problem lies with an incomplete DNSO making decisions before it is
fully constituted. This results in "ex post facto" (after this, therefore
because of this) policies and procedures. Thus, the DNSO is suffering
from the same malaise afflicting ICANN. Both are moving forward quickly to
their endgame goals without full procedures and a complete structure in
place. That makes all prior decisions suspect.
You cannot inhabit a structure until the foundation is built. Neither DNSO
nor ICANN yet have completely erected that foundation.
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
========================== ^..^ )6 =============================
ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
firstname.lastname@example.org W W Tiburon, CA
DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age