[council] RE: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC - Attn. DNSO Secretariat and NC
The issues related to "delete" are just becoming a topic in the BC, although
I am well aware that they are already well underway as a topic in the
Registrar and perhaps Registry Constituencies, as well as the GA.
Let's add this to our NC agenda as a discussion item, please.
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 9:36 PM
To: Jeff Williams
Cc: eric@Business.com.VN; email@example.com; philip sheppard; DNSO Council;
Subject: Re: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC - Attn. DNSO Secretariat and
Thank you for your comments perhaps with my response we can clarify matters.
Please read it further this is a proposal of the letter to send out to do
you have demanded. It is being posted here in order to garner at least 24
before going out. I do not want anyone to support my draft!! I want them to
in short order so that it is an open and transparent process.
This letter is being drafted in specific response and compromise with your
nothing can be legitimate unless we notify and beg permission to move
Please Jeff help us move forward you are not the only concern here, we have
many and I
am trying to reach a consensus among them, by ccing Phil prematurely you may
your own intentions. If you are going to give your mom a birthday card you
not ask her to
help you make it.
Jeff Williams wrote:
> Eric and all assembly members,
> Has the NC been notified of what you are trying to start up here
> Eric? Philip, please advise. Have you made a request to the NC
> and the DNSO Secretariat Eric? Secretariat, Please advise...
> If not Eric, I cannot support this effort as being one that is
> in the best interest or supported by the DNSO GA members...
> Eric Dierker wrote:
> > Please take notice that certain members of the GA of the DNSO of ICANN
> > are forming a working group
> > to attempt to reach some consensus on the matters of policy regarding
> > Domain Name deletions.
> > The Working Group will be open to all GA members that chose to
> > participate. It will follow established precedence and formally adopted
> > rules regarding Working Groups.
> > The address of the working group will be ++++++ for the immediate
> > future.
> > Concurrent with this notice we request that a Formal Working Group be
> > established for this purpose and
> > all work done within our Working Group will cede to that of the more
> > formally authorized Working Group,
> > should there be one established.
> > The group will work in basically two phases which will operate
> > concurrently but dependent upon each other.
> > Due to the suggestion and well reasoned position of my esteemed
> > colleague Mr. William Walsh we will first of
> > all form questions to the VRSN Registry. It would appear that there
> > will be cooperation between the group and said registry.
> > Secondly we will endeavor to adopt a set of principals that transcend
> > technical applications and protocols with public policy applications and
> > protocols.
> > There may well be departure from our still formative best practices
> > within this working group as this is a first time experience for the GA
> > which we will acknowledge as being somewhat experimental.
> > ___________________
> > Questions:
> > 1. Who do we send it to?
> > 2. What links and/or other references should be attached?
> > 3. Should we attempt for signatories or should I just send it off
> > with
> > the understanding that I shall step aside from any further management
> > role?
> > 4. I would prefer to remain this vague on exact parameters as I
> > believe that
> > will be the first job of the group and I do not believe it should be
> > dictated.
> > This is a working paper, I have no vested interest in its' evolution so
> > feel free to totally
> > trash it or support it. My feelings will not be hurt.
> > A particular Secretary General in a particular SouthEast Asian country
> > looked at me and asked:
> > "do you really think there is any chance of running a governance body by
> > using bottoms-up, open and
> > transparent, consensus policies?"
> > My response was: "I guess we will only find out if we try"
> > His response: "We will be quite interested and watching"
> > My response: "I was afraid of that"
> > Well here we go - to my knowledge this is the first formed bottoms-up
> > open and transparent, GA WG attempt at consensus on an outside issue.
> > Best to all of you.
> > Eric
> > --
> > 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
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail firstname.lastname@example.org
> Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
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