[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[registrars] Re: [registrar] ISSUES with Teleconference
I have no trouble with an accelerated schedule, however
I think we should be careful to make sure that there are
enough registrars involved.
I haven't seen a lot of discussion about any of these issues,
and from the number of test messages it seems that there
still seem to be concerns about whether or not the list is
operational. I am including both lists, so apologize if
the firstname.lastname@example.org is indeed working :-) Are all the
testbed and post-testbed registrars (and NSI) already subscribed
to the dnso.org mailing list?
As this is supposed to be an open process, we really need
to make sure that discussions are carried out on the lists,
or using other means of open communication. I think the
good thing about holding a teleconference sooner rather than
later is that it can help focus the discussion, and provide
for the ability to measure the level of support amongh the
participants. If there is sufficient support for accelerating
the schedule demonstrated via email, then I think we could
forgo the teleconference.
Additionally, I think it would help to have nominees to
the Names Council confirm whether or not they accept the
nomination, and provide a description of themselves and
"Michael D. Palage" wrote:
> I believe it is in the best interest of the group to see if there is a
> majority support for expediting the nomination/election process as follows.
> Nominations ending by Tuesday midnight EST, I only choose this reference
> time frame since I will be the one responsible for compiling the nominations
> to circulate for voting purposes. I will have the nominations in place at
> the latest by 2 AM EST Wednesday. I will then forward the voting options to
> the list and recommend that votes be forwarded directly to me no latter than
> Thursday midnight EST. This will allow our group to have its voice heard at
> the NC's first meeting. For now we will count votes the old fashion,
> although I believe that the VoteBot that Robert has talked about holds great
> promise for future elections.