Re: [ga] Re: Abusing consensus in the Tranfers TF
Let me be clear about this. The TF has and continues to undertake work
around points 1-5. My proposal simply advocates that we should begin to
analyze recommendations that will fulfill point 6 in parallel with our
closing work on points 1-5. If any of the work-yet-to-be-done on points 1-5
conflicts with our work on point 6 then we must reconsider our work on point
It's called "parallelization of effort" and constitutes perfectly valid
process. As I mentioned to the TF sometime over the last couple of days, as
long as we remain cognizant of the interdependencies between the various
tracks, then we should have no problem working through to the deadline that
I proposed. It might require some additional horsepower and attention, but
it is a perfectly reasonable deadline.
As far as seeking your concurrence on our work schedule, I'm going to have
to defer. The reality of the matter is that there is a proposal on the table
that the TF can accept, reject, modify or do nothing with. If the GA has
significant agreement/disagreement with the approach that I am advocating,
then I would strongly recommend that you work with your representative and
chair to ensure that the prevailing sentiment of this forum is appropriately
represented in the TF. In other words, talk to the proposal.
While having this discussion here makes for good sport, it does very little
to contribute to timely closure of an issue that has been wallowing in the
DNSO for over a year now.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:48 AM
Subject: [ga] Re: Abusing consensus in the Tranfers TF
> Let's be clear about this... You seek to have the TF wrap up its business
> within one month and adopt your proposal even though there has been no
> made within the TF to seek the views of those that would be impacted by
> proposed policy. There has been no call for alternate proposals, no
> conducted, and no attempt to formally involve the registrant community.
> spite of a teleconference devoted to the topic of apparent authority,
> has been no Task Force language adopted to clarify that which constitutes
> apparent authority within the ICANN process. On list, there has been no
> dialogue whatsoever between task force members other than you and Marilyn
> the last month, and the new representatives from the NCDNHC haven't yet
> entered into the TF to participate (and will surely require a fair amount
> time to rise to the challenge imposed by the learning curve in this
> You argue that: "The work of this task force thus far has focused on
> number 1 through 5 in the Final Terms of Reference document tabled by our
> chairperson on December 4, 2001" and you now seek to move right on to the
> concluding point six. Let me remind you of points 3 and 4:
> 3. Identify any issues not yet fully addressed by the Registrar's document
> and develop appropriate task force processes to ensure that these
> areas are addressed in a timely manner that reflects the input of all
> affected stakeholders;
> 4. Develop effective mechanism to take input from registrants (across all
> sectors-individuals, non commercial, government, corporate, other) for
> initial validation of concerns regarding impact of transfers on
> ensure documentation of such outreach; including requesting substantive
> submissions from those who may be affected;
> Prove to me that you have focused on these points. If you can
> TF activities in compliance with these points then I will concur that you
> ready to move on, otherwise it is wholly inappropriate behavior to move to
> closure of the TF process by April 30.
> 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
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