[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [discuss] Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Meeting Webcast

At 06:17 26/06/1999 +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>I am posting this here to the discuss, but there are some points I
>feel the members of this list should probably hear and discuss.
>Thank you.
>On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:10:40 -0800, Ellen Rony <erony@marin.k12.ca.us>
>>I have just returned from the Names Council meeting and will type up some
>>notes as soon as I get my breath, but I wanted to address this.
>>The room was relatively small, i.e., would seat about 60 people to
>>capacity, but the screen for posting email comment was quite large,
>>stationed at the front of the room.  There were very few realtime comments
>>submitted by email during the Administrative meeting.  Nonetheless, the NC
>>members did look and did address a few of the comments.  If there had been
>>lots of comments, the system would absolutely not work because it's
>>apparent that it is logistically difficult to conduct a physical meeting
>>and address email concerns, all the while trying to deal with the
>>teleconference aspects (i.e., the NC members that were participating by
>>telephone and were having a hard time hearing the comments of other members
>>and audience participants).
>>There will be a committee (initially called Working Group D) that is going
>>to look at such procedures, and this is an area that needs to be worked
>>out, but my observation is that progress was made in this area because the
>>NC was certainly aware of the email comments.  Volunteers, anyone?
>I tuned in to the webcast, and I have to say I was much more pleased
>with this meeting than I have been in the past with the ICANN
>meetings, and what appeared to be commitment from the provisional NC
>to continue and expand on online participation.
>This was a breath of fresh air, and the provisional NC needs to be
>commended for this, provided they follow through with action now.
>I'd say that ICANN can take some pointers here.  The sky didn't fall
>in by letting people listen in even to the executive session.
>Many valid points and compelling arguments were brought up by the
>participants.  I believe Ellen and Karl both made some very good
>points and arguments to back them up.  I'd like to see some expansion
>on those points myself.
>I was somewhat troubled by comments made by Amadeu (who otherwise I
>found to have been most fair and indeed made many very valid points)
>about some of the issues Karl and others brought up.  Basically it was
>a "take it to ICANN" type answer. 

As I heard it, it was a "the DNSO has no time for democracy" type of argument.
I commented about this online, but I don't know if it was seen or read.

 Someone else (whose name escapes me
>at the moment) brought up a point that the NC might strive to be
>"better" than ICANN and indeed make recommendations to ICANN beyond
>the scope of what ICANN has delegated to them, such as recognition of
>Constituencies, as something that directly affects their ability to
>fulfill their mandate to be a tool of broad consensus.  I think this
>is something the NC should definitely take under serious
>consideration, and would help them establish their legitimacy with
>some of the disenfranchised.  Some of the NC members even expressed
>personal support for the Individuals Constituency and the IDNO effort
>to fill that role.
Which shows that perhaps it has been argued enough and it is time to take a
vote to see where the General Assembly stands on this issue.

>I think this meeting has left me in a cautiously optimistic state of
>mind.  Very cautiously however.

We are still optimistic enough to keep talking.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners