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

Re: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.


>To facilitate this process, could you clarify a few points regarding
>this group (which is Working Group D, if I'm not mistaken):

It is not exactly Working Group D, for which there is not yet a contact
point. Procedures for Working Groups have been separated into a different
committee  (F) that will deal only with that.

>1)  Who is currently heading this WG, if anyone,

Nobody, officially. It was proposed by Bill Semish, I seem to remember.

>2)  Who should be contacted if one wishes to join this WG

It was proposed as a committee of the pNC, not a working group. Bill Semish
should be the contact point, I guess. He is in this list, I believe (he is
in copy, anyway). If I am wrong, say so, Bill.

>3)  When and via what media the first(?) meeting of this WG will occur

No idea. There is a tendency to work on e-mail, rather than meetings.

>4)  The exact date by which this WG must have completed its report

Three week after the June 25th meeting.

>5)  In what manner the WG D report will be presented to, and approved by,
>      the pDNC and the GA?  (of particular interest, since there are no
>      procedures established yet.  We need a 'bootstrapping' process of 
>      some form.)

Following the type of process that we have in the calendar for other
issues, it should be posted by comment by the GA for a reasonable period of
time, then the pNC should take the report and the comments from the GA and
prepare a final document.

>6)  Whether WG D will be tasked with determining the process the GA will
>      use to nominate representatives to sit on the Board, as described in
>      section (d) of the General Assembly definition at 
>      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/aboutdnso.html?

Actually, WG D should be the one to do this, a different committee than the
one we have been talking about. I assume that nominations will be opened.
Anybody in the GA can nominate anybody they want, I can not see any reason
for blocking a nomination.

>7)  Could you confirm that the GA will be fully constituted by the time
>      the WG D report is presented so that it may be agreed upon?

The GA is already fully constituted. Our discussion is part of it.

>...and finally, would you be willing to address the other issues I raised
>in my last e-mail?

Personally, I would like to see Kent's idea of electing individual users
from the GA studied further . My concern would be capture, how to avoid
multiple voting, users that do not exist, etc. I don't know if the issues
can be solved in a practical way.. Again, this is strictly a personal
opinion. I do not think that the pNC should say anything about it, as it is
not our job.

Another issue that I am very concerned with is finances. How are we going
to raise the money to pay for the secretariat, webcasting, teleconferences,
meetings, etc...  if we need  (as an example, I don't know how much it will
cost) US $50,000 to 100,000, how are we going to raise it ? Should each
member of the GA pay a part of it? (I am not sure that we now have 200
members, this would mean up to US$500 per person). Is this too much? What
do we do otherwise?