DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [nc-str] Final terms of reference

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:31:48 +1300, DPF <david@farrar.com> wrote:
>I don't wish to delay things here or be obstructive but I am concerned
>that what was an unadvertised informal meeting with less than full
>attendance has seemingly made decisions without reference back to the
>full Taskforce.  This is hardly operating in accordance with ICANN
>bylaws of transparency.
>I had no problem with such informal meeting doing a brainstorming of a
>draft TOR which then come forward to the formal  Taskforce.  However
>the above statements suggest the informal meeting made decisions which
>are not open to revisiting and are binding.
>It would be more helpful for those who were in LA to supply the
>reasons why they think a certain way, rather than merely announce this
>has been considered and rejected.
>I don't wish to be blamed for the TF to miss any deadline as they are
>so tight anyway so will not relitigate those decisions, but am placing
>on the record my concern at the process.

I have had pointed out to me that there may in fact be other issues
which were "decided"at this informal unrepresentative meeting.  At the
risk of contradicting my earlier e-mail I think it could be useful if
someone posted the minutes (or a list of decisions taken) of the
meeting in LA and allow us a very short period of time (say this
weekend) to decide whether to confirm or amend them.  Not to do so but
to refer to unminuted decisions taken at unofficial meetings would not
be transparent.

On that note can I comment on the below "decisions"

>>2. On Raul's comments on board seats, a small TF meeting in LA 
>>indeed also agreed that we should not focus on these.

I'm having some difficulty after reflection to see how we can avoid
some focus on this.  Sure I agree we should not let the one issue be
the only focus but to skirt it all together is a bit of a cop out.
Not so much even in terms of actual numbers but the quite fundamental
change to the founding principles from a 50/50 split between users and
(other) stakeholders to a 33/33/33 split between users, providers and
developers.  I believe the notion of splitting non-user stakeholders
into providers and developers is something which may flow into
everything else and worth us having a look at.

>3. On Raul's proposal for a co-chair, we agreed that having the NC 
>chair to oversee process was a good way forward. In general, I do 
>not believe a co-chair idea is that helpful. It can slow progress. 

Is this TF able to ignore the rules of procedure of the Names Council?
WIth only nine people here electing a co-chair is something which
would take hours not days and it would I believe make any
recommendations which emerge more likely to attract consensus support.

After all the issues before this taskforce are probably more important
than any others in the past, present and possible future as they are
fundamentally ones of a constitutional nature.

ICQ 29964527

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