DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Re: [nc-str] Draft report version 7 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL

hello Philip
maybe you don't recall me previously expressing my concerns to you (personally at the November meeting) that this TF needed to hold some meeting  (i.e. teleconf.) where views should be exchanged and we could develop a "group approach" to dealing with this issues. to date, as chair,  you have not seen fit to call any meetings but rather requested that parties submit responses directly to you and you have taken it upon yourself to "distill" these comments and categorize them. 
this TF has suffered from a significant lack of "interaction" which has characterized other task forces. we have, to the best of my knowledge, NEVER had any formal teleconferences or face-to-face task force meetings and as such the opportunity for "real-time" of exchanges is sorely lacking. 
as one who comes from a European background, i am quite curious about your characterization of "approval", as it has been my understanding that the custom (as well as the law) in most  EU countries is to determine  "approval"  from "specific assent" as opposed to "lack of objection".
to the best of my knowledge, you have never requested any formal vote or poll on any of the issues presented in the report but rather have taken it unto yourself to determine approval by this "lack of objection"
best you look to the approaches taken by Milton with the dot org TF or Marilyn & Tony with the "whois" & transfer TF.  there has been a much more spirited "exchange of comments and ideas" following teleconferences.
the record of "outreach" in the report should indicate to you that the "methodology"  for accomplishing same in this TF appears to be "inadequate" as opposed to other TF's 
ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 8:37 AM
Subject: [nc-str] Draft report version 7 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL

as the Registrars rep to the Structure task force it is great to see your first ever comment to the TF list since it's start-up in October 2001. But please be specific in your complaint. Which of the two paragraphs which are described as "minority and other reports" do you have a problem with ?

The first one was from the non-commercial constituency and said they favour an at-large definition wider than domain name holders. I have not seen this view supported by other constituencies, so it seems reasonable to describe it as "minority".

The second one was the gTLD registries saying they wanted registry operator input into the formulation of at-large infrastructure support. This is outside of the TOR of the task force and specific to that constituency so seems reasonable to describe it as "other".
The views of your constituency on the body of the report are most welcome.
Philip Sheppard

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>