[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
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?