[nc-transfer] [ga] FW: Transfer TF - 2
Forwarded from the GA list:
> From: Joanna Lane <email@example.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 02:19:12 -0400
> To: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
> Cc: Danny Younger <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> Subject: Transfer TF
> Dear Caroline,
> Since my participation now seems to be a topic on the Transfer list, please
> allow me to make my position quite clear to its members.
> Yesterday, in my response to Philip Shepard, posted to the Council list, I
> provided the basis for a proposal to appoint a registrants representative to
> the TF, in addition to a GA representative.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00427.html. Notwithstanding
> that I am complimented by both Philip's and Marilyn's support of me in that
> capacity, it was never my intention, nor my proposal, to replace the GA
> representative, and that is not the issue here.
> At the heart of the matter is the NC's obligations to include interested
> persons who have expressed a desire to participate, are directly and
> substantially impacted by the policies under review, and who are not
> adequately represented in the process by the current Task Force structure.
> The TF clearly has the ability to appoint whom it likes, hence my request
> in the exceptional circumstances that it's task relates specifically to
> that impact registrants, it simply exercices that option and appoints the
> competent person available as a representative of that group, (and in
> particular individual registrants), whomsoever that may be.
> Had a separate DNSO constituency for individuals been created, this problem
> would never have arisen, but as things stand, the TF must now find another
> to reach this impacted group in its day to day deliberations. If it does not
> do so, it is inconceivable that the validity of its final report will stand
> the test of any registrar who does like what it sees, and seeks a way to
> implementation. My concern is that Registrants would then suffer far greater
> hardship than they do now from the ensuing confusion and there would be
> nothing more the DNSO could do to help.
> Clearly, even with a representative on board, outreach and investigations
> need to be undertaken and I'm sure we all have ideas about that we can
> discuss, but as a practical matter, there needs to be one representative to
> facilitate and act as a centralized source for input, at least for
> registrants that are simply not represented by the existing constituencies.
> Also, one can't help wondering how the TF will ever be able to hold a
> discussion about anything, or arrive at any conclusions, if there is not a
> single member from that group available to throw some light on a problem.
> In my view, the ALSO has no bearing on this discussion, since policy
> recommendations from DNSO must include outreach to impacted parties and one
> cannot deny that individual registrants are impacted by the policies before
> this task force.
> With all the above aspects in mind, clearly this argument is not about
> my participation should be as a representative of the GA, or as a
> representative at all, it is about this TF not being capable of functioning
> properly unless either:-
> a) it appoints one person as a representative for registrants or
> b) it transforms into a working group with an open mailing list that allows
> direct interaction with registrants.
> Personally, I would consider either of these two alternatives acceptable,
> am inclined to favor option b) as the best way to go.
> Please forward this to the Task Force list if you think it would be helpful.