Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #985
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, January 14 2002           Volume 01 : Number 985

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:55:12 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Working Groups

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:24:20 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:

> There's also no benefit in having a "working group" unless it is actually
> empowered to make decisions which the DNSO can be expected to carry out.

I couldn't agree that a working group should be "empowered" to do anything
except report to somebody.  Nothing else concurs with the ICANN Bylaws.

What sort of power do you expect the WG to have over the SOs for example?

> That would mean such groups would need to be created and given terms of
> reference by the Names Council.

I'd guess that the GA would be happy to pass responsibility to the NC if it
acted professionally, sought wider input and determined issues on their
merits.  Instead they are captured (as is the whole of ICANN) by big business
interests.

It would be interesting, for example, to see whether VeriSign's WLS proposal
could, or would, get through the NC.  It couldn't get through the GA, that's
for sure.

> Of course, the NC should be doing this for any important question on which
> there is no obvious consensus, and should entirely scrap its farcical Task
> Forces in favour of open-to-anyone Working Groups as used by IETF.

Exactly my point, Sandy, so don't go giving the NC even more power.

> So let's push for that, but in the meanwhile let's not delude ourselves
> that the GA can create meaningful Working Groups.

In that case the GA is a dead duck and we might as well unsubscribe.

Sad to say, you and the other naysayers have won the day.

:-(

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:29:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC - Attn. DNSO Secretariat and NC]

Eric and all assembly members,

  I have demanded nothing.  I have only suggested.  Let's be clear on
that right now!  So the reference you provided for this post Eric
is in error.  Please discontinue these sorts of games.

  Here again  is exactly what I stated in response to your
previous post and that post is included:
============ copy of post follows here =============
"Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   Has the NC been notified of what you are trying to start up here
> Eric?  Philip, please advise.  Have you made a request to the NC
> and the DNSO Secretariat Eric?  Secretariat, Please advise...
> If not Eric, I cannot support this effort as being one that is
> in the best interest or supported by the DNSO GA members...
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Please take notice that certain members of the GA of the DNSO of ICANN
> > are forming a working group
> > to attempt to reach some consensus on the matters of policy regarding
> > Domain Name deletions.
> >
> > The Working Group will be open to all GA members that chose to
> > participate.  It will follow established precedence and formally adopted
> > rules regarding Working Groups.
> >
> > The address of the working group will be ++++++ for the immediate
> > future.
> >
> > Concurrent with this notice we request that a Formal Working Group be
> > established for this purpose and
> > all work done within our Working Group will cede to that of the more
> > formally authorized Working Group,
> > should there be one established."
===================  End of copy =============

  There is absolutely NO demand in my response to you, is there
Eric?

Eric Dierker wrote:

> This has been posted for over 24 hours.  Very little input has been
> received so I will move forward and send it out on my monday morning.
>
> We will then begin to formulate questions to Versign.  All input here
> will be considered input on the list used for that purpose.  I believe
> this may satisfy Mr. Walsh.
>
> New chairs will be elected and appointed in the next few days.  My
> administrative role in this group will end at that point. {if by some
> queer quirk of horrible fate I am elected in either chair role, well
> then that would change along with Mr. Walshs' resignation from this list
> or at least my first order of business would be to ask for his
> suspension}
>
> If we begin this group will any of the registrars host and help support
> an independent list and body in keeping with Mr. Williams desires.  We
> will need immediate polling and voting mechanisms.  We will need an
> interfacing technical secretariat to work with our consensual and
> elected secretariat.
>
> I would ask those interested to forward this to the appropriate powers
> to be and cc this list so that we are all on the same page here.
> Masseurs. Patrick,  Jeff, William,  Abel, Jess, Thomas and all others
> who have been so patient as to give us great wisdom and advice I thank
> you wholeheartedly, even though we may disagree at least we are all
> working in a forward looking manner.  I apologize that we could not
> fully accommodate all concerns and I sincerely appreciate all of the
> compromises being made in the sake of accomplishing a first ever bottoms
> up WG.
> If there are errors in its' creation they are mine and next time we will
> do better.
>
> Please begin drafting and submitting questions to the GA-SYS.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2       Type: message/rfc822
>               Encoding: 7bit

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:41:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC - Attn. DNSO Secretariat and NC]

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-01-13 11:53:21 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >New chairs will be elected and appointed in the next few days.  My
> >administrative role in this group will end at that point.

  You have no administrative role in this group at this point of time,
and I'd strongly suggest that you do not simulate having one to others.

  I couldn't agree more in this instance with you Thomas.

>
> Since there's no visible benefit in moving these discussions away
>  from the main GA list at this time (at least, nobody has pointed one
> out so far, I think), I'd (again) suggest that the discussion on the
> deletion issue remains on the main GA list.

  Well this may not be completely correct, but we don't know yet
the results of Patrick's Poll.  As you know or should know if you have
been following along there has been a call for a Delete WG to include
a Delete WG ML.  Hence until there is a little more input to Patrick's
poll, you comment here is misleading to a degree.
See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00327.html
and: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00390.html

  As has been stated, and suggested a number of GA members have
requested that the proposed delete WG come from within the DNSO
GA by the members.  This is essentially what the two outstanding polls
are about.

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:43:27 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The GA -- A Respected Forum ?

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:36:02 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-01-13 11:53:21 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >New chairs will be elected and appointed in the next few days.  My
> >administrative role in this group will end at that point.
>
> You have no administrative role in this group at this point of time,
> and I'd strongly suggest that you do not simulate having one to
> others.
>
> Since there's no visible benefit in moving these discussions away
>  from the main GA list at this time (at least, nobody has pointed one
> out so far, I think), I'd (again) suggest that the discussion on the
> deletion issue remains on the main GA list.

Hi Thomas

It's a pity that you just want to continue "more of the same" as this approach
has demonstratedly failed in the past.

The truth is that unless the GA sets up working groups which can deeply probe
the important policy issues we will continue to be a chat forum which achieves
nothing of substance.  Worse, the GA is now little more than a joke.

Have a look around.  When did you last see a post from any of the respected
participants other than Chuck Gomes who was arguing for VeriSign's WLS
proposal?

Where are the postings from any of the ICANN Board members or any of the ICANN
staff?  Their names are too well known for me to even mention them but Karl
Auerbach and Joe Sims come to mind.

I remember that Amadeu Abril i Abril has posted here as has Andrew McLaughlin.

Where are the postings from anybody in the Business Constituency or even
anybody in the Non-Commercial Constituency?  Names such as Marilyn Cade,
Phillip Sheppard and Milton Mueller.  What about the Registrars or the new
Registry operators?

Where indeed are any postings from those in the Alt Root world like Joe
Baptista, John Palmer, Bradley Thornton, Marc Schneiders, Roeland Meyer or
Richard Sexton?  Or the former Chair and Alt Chair?  Have we already forgotten
Roberto Gaetano and Harald Tveit Alvestrand?  And where are the academics who
used to be here and posting?

With 200 or more ccTLDs you should surely expect some postings from the
representatives of Australia, Canada, South Africa or the other English
speaking countries.  What about the major non-English speakers like France,
Spain and Germany?  Or those in the minor league like Qatar, Ghana or
Cambodia?

Please tell me of one single occasion where the GA has determined a policy
issue of any sort that has met the consensus criteria required by the ICANN
Bylaws?

How, then, do you expect the GA to be a respected forum?  Should you get
elected, you would be the Chair in charge of little more than Eric Dierker and
Jeff Williams.

Even Jefsey Morfin seems to have lost interest !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:02:03 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Groups

Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:24:20 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> > There's also no benefit in having a "working group" unless it is actually
> > empowered to make decisions which the DNSO can be expected to carry out.
> 
> I couldn't agree that a working group should be "empowered" to do anything
> except report to somebody.  Nothing else concurs with the ICANN Bylaws.
> 
> What sort of power do you expect the WG to have over the SOs for example?

We're talking a bit at cross purposes here. Let me try to clarify.

What I'm trying to do is advocate a model more like (my understanding of)
the way the IETF does things rather than the current way ICANN does them.

I think this is urgently necessary because the current ICANN system does not
appear to be working well, and the IETF system is the only method that has
ever been demonstrated to work for designing and running an Internet.

I admit I'm not at all certain how the IETF system should be modified to
suit ICANN's quite different role, or indeed that it can survive attempts
at such modifications. As I see it, the first attempt gave us the current
ICANN structure, and is obviously failing. Time to move back toward the
IETF model, then perhaps cautiusly try other modifications.

So, in that context, I'm saying I'd like to see roles much more like the
IETF system of Working Groups overseen by Area Directors and the IESG
(Internet Engineering Steering Committee). 

Restrict the Names Council and ICANN Board from rewriting WG proposals.
They can reject a proposal, or send it back to the WG for a rewrite, but
not rewrite it themselves. On overall policy matters, they might generate
pronouncements like the IESG/IAB RFC 1984. However, the basic model is 
that decisions are made by Working Groups.

Scrap the idea that the Names Council should ever appoint a closed Task 
Force rather than setting up an open Working Group to deal with a problem.

Scrap the notion of constituencies. Let them join the Working Groups.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:55:14 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Groups

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:02:03 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:

> We're talking a bit at cross purposes here. Let me try to clarify.

Thank you, Sandy, I understand you now.

> What I'm trying to do is advocate a model more like (my understanding of)
> the way the IETF does things rather than the current way ICANN does them.

Agreed.  I prefer that model too.  That's the direction I have been trying to
move towards but within a framework acceptable to the GA and the NC.

> I think this is urgently necessary because the current ICANN system does not
> appear to be working well, and the IETF system is the only method that has
> ever been demonstrated to work for designing and running an Internet.

Well said.  The problem is how to implement it.

> I admit I'm not at all certain how the IETF system should be modified to
> suit ICANN's quite different role, or indeed that it can survive attempts
> at such modifications. As I see it, the first attempt gave us the current
> ICANN structure, and is obviously failing. Time to move back toward the
> IETF model, then perhaps cautiusly try other modifications.

Sure, but at least we must first define the question and you have created a
reasonable framework for analysis.  Thank you.

> So, in that context, I'm saying I'd like to see roles much more like the
> IETF system of Working Groups overseen by Area Directors and the IESG
> (Internet Engineering Steering Committee).

Assuming we implement Working Groups, these can be done at one of three levels
viz within ICANN as a whole, within the DNSO (under the NC) or within the GA
itself.

We can more-or-less set up what we want within the GA and that's what I have
been trying to do.  Perhaps the NC could be convinced iff the GA had strong
consensus.

But the ICANN level (including other SOs) is more intractable.  Hence a number
of participants have tried to address the ICANN structure.

> Restrict the Names Council and ICANN Board from rewriting WG proposals.

That's perhaps possible in the light of your comments below.

> They can reject a proposal, or send it back to the WG for a rewrite, but
> not rewrite it themselves. On overall policy matters, they might generate
> pronouncements like the IESG/IAB RFC 1984. However, the basic model is
> that decisions are made by Working Groups.

Perhaps we should not use the word "decisions" in this context, as it will
imply that ICANN is ceding control.  What does the IETF call them, RFCs or
Drafts?

What about "determinations" or something similar?

> Scrap the idea that the Names Council should ever appoint a closed Task
> Force rather than setting up an open Working Group to deal with a problem.

Absolutely agree.  It must be open.

> Scrap the notion of constituencies. Let them join the Working Groups.

Yes, but that's where the power lies and it's hard to persuade them to
voluntarily relinquish their control over the NC.   As a compromise we could
leave the constituencies and allow them to participate in the Working Groups.
Eventually there would be a shift in the balance of power.

So the real question is (a) what level (ICANN, SO or GA) and (b) how do we
generate consensus to achieve your proposal.

My way was to implement Working Groups within the GA itself but I would prefer
to move up a level.  The present "closed" NC Task Forces should not be
supported, imo.

In fact, I think we are wrong to participate in voting a representative.
That's just the NC throwing us some scraps to keep us happy.

I also think that the methodology to determine "terms of reference" needs to
be very carefully considered as this happens to be a key pressure point.  The
current NC Task Forces have had their agenda set by Phillip Sheppard (either
in his role as Chair of the Names Council or in his role on the Task Force
itself).

Thanks for the clarification :-)

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:23:24 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Groups

On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 07:02:03PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > What sort of power do you expect the WG to have over the SOs for example?
> 
> We're talking a bit at cross purposes here. Let me try to clarify.
> 
> What I'm trying to do is advocate a model more like (my understanding of)
> the way the IETF does things rather than the current way ICANN does them.

IETF WGs are an excellent model for what the GA *could* be doing, but
not, I think, for what you think the GA *should* be doing: IETF WGs are
fundamentally *document-producing systems*, not *decision systems*. 

This is an absolutely fundamental distinction.  The documents that the
IETF produces, as a general rule, have absolutely no binding effect on
anyone; you (or a company) can follow an RFC or not, as you please. 
Basically, the IETF produces documents, and whether they have any effect
is completely dependent on how the public reacts to them.  In fact, the
IETF is perfectly capable of producing incompatible, competing protocols
for doing the same basic function.  

If you transfer that model to the DNSO, then there would be great
freedom to form working groups on any topic relevant to the DNSO, but
the documents that those WGs produced would not be binding on anyone. 
You could form one WG to define and clarify a particular view of how
things should be done; and I could from a second, competing WG to
explain the same thing.  The WGs could each produce documents that were 
the consensus of their respective WGs, but there would be absolutely no 
presumption that the process developed any policy that was in any way 
binding on ICANN or anyone else.

[...]

> So, in that context, I'm saying I'd like to see roles much more like the
> IETF system of Working Groups overseen by Area Directors and the IESG
> (Internet Engineering Steering Committee). 

If you go back over the archives of WG "D" (the WG on WGs), I think it
was (one of the userful things the IETF does is require mnenomics for
WGs -- much better than the nonsense of using single letter names), you 
will find proposals for exactly this kind of stuff.

> 
> Restrict the Names Council and ICANN Board from rewriting WG proposals.
> They can reject a proposal, or send it back to the WG for a rewrite, but
> not rewrite it themselves. On overall policy matters, they might generate
> pronouncements like the IESG/IAB RFC 1984. However, the basic model is 
> that decisions are made by Working Groups.

You are very confused about the IETF, I'm afraid.

> Scrap the idea that the Names Council should ever appoint a closed Task 
> Force rather than setting up an open Working Group to deal with a problem.
> 
> Scrap the notion of constituencies. Let them join the Working Groups.

You know the saying about those who don't know history are condemned to 
repeat it?  You are proposing that we repeat history.  We tried open 
WGs and they don't work for the purpose you imagine they do.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:34:58 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC - Attn. DNSO Secretariat and NC

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:19:31 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   Has the NC been notified of what you are trying to start up here
> Eric?  Philip, please advise.  Have you made a request to the NC
> and the DNSO Secretariat Eric?  Secretariat, Please advise...

As you know, Eric has no authority to make any requests of the NC or DNSO
Secretariat.

> If not Eric, I cannot support this effort as being one that is
> in the best interest or supported by the DNSO GA members...

Eric's proposal might or might not be in the best interests of GA members but
without "support" from the GA it effectively has no legs.

It is certainly not in the "best interests" of the GA for any of us, however
well-intentioned, to make decisions on behalf of the GA as a body.  The only
possible exception is that a properly elected Chair may draw upon what he or
she feels is reasonable consensus.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:48:40 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Open" Working Groups

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:23:24 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

> You know the saying about those who don't know history are condemned to
> repeat it?  You are proposing that we repeat history.  We tried open
> WGs and they don't work for the purpose you imagine they do.

Thank you for your input, Kent.  We must be getting warm now :-)

History is like an analogy.  It may, or may not, fit the present
circumstances.

A good example is the ancient system of English common law.  One judge would
make a determination in the circumstances of the particular case.  Later
another judge would look to see if the previous case set a precedent.  If it
did, the second judge would follow the previous determination.

However, the second judge could "distinguish" the case if the circumstances
were not the same as in the previous case.  That would then set a new
precedent.

The question is, therefore, what were the circumstances of the previous trial
of Open Working Groups?  And why exactly did they fail?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:12:03 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC - Attn. DNSO Secretariat and NC]

Apparently my desire to state that I will not carry on in any capacity was
translated by some of you to mean that I had some now.

I humbly apologize and I beseech anyone to take over this beginning role.

I have no role or capacity or administrative duties at this time and am
acting only as an usher to direct folks to a good seat.  They may chose any
at their choosing and i am only here to help them find what they are
looking for.

All errors in this regard are mine and I ask any better seating
arrangements be made clear now.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Thomas and all assembly members,
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > On 2002-01-13 11:53:21 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > >New chairs will be elected and appointed in the next few days.  My
> > >administrative role in this group will end at that point.
>
>   You have no administrative role in this group at this point of time,
> and I'd strongly suggest that you do not simulate having one to others.
>
>   I couldn't agree more in this instance with you Thomas.
>
> >
> > Since there's no visible benefit in moving these discussions away
> >  from the main GA list at this time (at least, nobody has pointed one
> > out so far, I think), I'd (again) suggest that the discussion on the
> > deletion issue remains on the main GA list.
>
>   Well this may not be completely correct, but we don't know yet
> the results of Patrick's Poll.  As you know or should know if you have
> been following along there has been a call for a Delete WG to include
> a Delete WG ML.  Hence until there is a little more input to Patrick's
> poll, you comment here is misleading to a degree.
> See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00327.html
> and: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00390.html
>
>   As has been stated, and suggested a number of GA members have
> requested that the proposed delete WG come from within the DNSO
> GA by the members.  This is essentially what the two outstanding polls
> are about.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:24:55 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Groups

These are great points and counter points,

I think that if we work toward a new model using our relevant best practices
along with models used
for the purposes of the NC then we come to a fine example.  But I see that we
have come to some common ground to influence our WG with a more technically
oriented set of working parameters.

And in fact these issues ask both technical and public policy questions.

Who among us can do the job over the next month.  The abuse is great and the
effort Herculean.

Let us begin to work on questions we want answered by the registry.

Eric

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 07:02:03PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > > What sort of power do you expect the WG to have over the SOs for example?
> >
> > We're talking a bit at cross purposes here. Let me try to clarify.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do is advocate a model more like (my understanding of)
> > the way the IETF does things rather than the current way ICANN does them.
>
> IETF WGs are an excellent model for what the GA *could* be doing, but
> not, I think, for what you think the GA *should* be doing: IETF WGs are
> fundamentally *document-producing systems*, not *decision systems*.
>
> This is an absolutely fundamental distinction.  The documents that the
> IETF produces, as a general rule, have absolutely no binding effect on
> anyone; you (or a company) can follow an RFC or not, as you please.
> Basically, the IETF produces documents, and whether they have any effect
> is completely dependent on how the public reacts to them.  In fact, the
> IETF is perfectly capable of producing incompatible, competing protocols
> for doing the same basic function.
>
> If you transfer that model to the DNSO, then there would be great
> freedom to form working groups on any topic relevant to the DNSO, but
> the documents that those WGs produced would not be binding on anyone.
> You could form one WG to define and clarify a particular view of how
> things should be done; and I could from a second, competing WG to
> explain the same thing.  The WGs could each produce documents that were
> the consensus of their respective WGs, but there would be absolutely no
> presumption that the process developed any policy that was in any way
> binding on ICANN or anyone else.
>
> [...]
>
> > So, in that context, I'm saying I'd like to see roles much more like the
> > IETF system of Working Groups overseen by Area Directors and the IESG
> > (Internet Engineering Steering Committee).
>
> If you go back over the archives of WG "D" (the WG on WGs), I think it
> was (one of the userful things the IETF does is require mnenomics for
> WGs -- much better than the nonsense of using single letter names), you
> will find proposals for exactly this kind of stuff.
>
> >
> > Restrict the Names Council and ICANN Board from rewriting WG proposals.
> > They can reject a proposal, or send it back to the WG for a rewrite, but
> > not rewrite it themselves. On overall policy matters, they might generate
> > pronouncements like the IESG/IAB RFC 1984. However, the basic model is
> > that decisions are made by Working Groups.
>
> You are very confused about the IETF, I'm afraid.
>
> > Scrap the idea that the Names Council should ever appoint a closed Task
> > Force rather than setting up an open Working Group to deal with a problem.
> >
> > Scrap the notion of constituencies. Let them join the Working Groups.
>
> You know the saying about those who don't know history are condemned to
> repeat it?  You are proposing that we repeat history.  We tried open
> WGs and they don't work for the purpose you imagine they do.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:40:44 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:18:42 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:41:21 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
>
>> Could I suggest both this poll and the previous one while well
>> intentioned lead to the GA being more dysfunctional.  Many do not
>> subscribe here to see 40 people vote on a list.
>
>True.  But even now people are arguing whether the issue should be
>referred to DNSO Secretariat to conduct a formal vote.

I know but I don't think it is useful in the absence of a functional
GA Chair to effectively have everyone start acting as GA Chair and
starting polls - especially polls on the list which result in 40 or so
identical posts on what is meant to be a discussion list.

>OTOH, a poll runs the risk of not being acceptable by those who insist on
>strict compliance with the rules.  Many on this list take a strict approach.

To be blunt the only use I see of polls for the GA is election of
officers or voting on internal rules.  The GA has no power at all
within ICANN so whether something is the consensus of the GA or passed
88-5 by the GA will have no effect on its ultimate disposition.

What we do have is the power of reason - to articulate and support
good arguments and also to be a forum where different constituencies
can discuss issues.  

Unless the bylaws of ICANN are changed (which I support) then most
votes are futile.  
 
>> I know we are basically without a GA Chair for now which doesn't help
>> but the way I see it is that when polls are needed the GA Chair should
>> arrange these through the Secretariat.
>
>When Danny was Chair he basically ignored my own request for a vote
>on the GA rules despite it being well supported.  And the DNSO Secretariat
>flatly refused to accept even simple requests from me as Alt Chair unless
>they were approved by the GA as a whole.  That meant a vote !!

I'm hopeful that shortly we will have a GA Chair who will be more
responsive to the needs of the GA.

>Please don't assume that I am doing this stuff because I like bureacracy.

No I don't.  It is frustrating the barriers placed before us.  I just
thought that starting a precedent of having any GA member start a vote
on any issue was a bad one.

>> However in both the recent cases no poll was needed IMO.  It was
>> obvious there was next to no support for the WLS proposal and as not a
>> single Registrar is supporting it, it is basically dead in the water.
>
>You really don't want to give the ICANN Board a loophole like we did the last
>time a VeriSign proposal was formulated by Joe Sims and pushed through the
>ICANN Board via the Names Council.

They don't need a loophole to ignore the GA.  We have no power whether
or not it is a formal vote or informal consensus.

>> A good GA Chair would have felt confident concluding the GA does not
>> support the proposal on the basis of the excellent discussion we have
>> had here.
>
>Sorry, David, we have not had a "good" GA Chair for over a year.  And at
>the moment we haven't got any at all.  So we make do as best we can.

I understand - but I felt the precedent was bad for when we do have
one.
 
>> Likewise wrt setting up a WG.  The GA Chair should be able to read the
>> mood of the GA and either set up a GA Working Group or preferably ask
>> the NC to set up a DNSO Working Group on the issue.
>
>No, sorry.  Every time the Chair takes an initiative it is firmly opposed by
>almost everybody on the list.  You know that very well.

Actually I don't.  Roberto and Harald managed several initiatives.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:52:44 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC - Attn. DNSO Secretariat and NC]

Ok,

I find little to no support to setting up this working group because we do
not have the proper
procedures in place.  Perhaps i am fitting a round peg into a square hole.

best to all and sorry for wasting your time.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Thomas and all assembly members,
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > On 2002-01-13 11:53:21 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > >New chairs will be elected and appointed in the next few days.  My
> > >administrative role in this group will end at that point.
>
>   You have no administrative role in this group at this point of time,
> and I'd strongly suggest that you do not simulate having one to others.
>
>   I couldn't agree more in this instance with you Thomas.
>
> >
> > Since there's no visible benefit in moving these discussions away
> >  from the main GA list at this time (at least, nobody has pointed one
> > out so far, I think), I'd (again) suggest that the discussion on the
> > deletion issue remains on the main GA list.
>
>   Well this may not be completely correct, but we don't know yet
> the results of Patrick's Poll.  As you know or should know if you have
> been following along there has been a call for a Delete WG to include
> a Delete WG ML.  Hence until there is a little more input to Patrick's
> poll, you comment here is misleading to a degree.
> See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00327.html
> and: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00390.html
>
>   As has been stated, and suggested a number of GA members have
> requested that the proposed delete WG come from within the DNSO
> GA by the members.  This is essentially what the two outstanding polls
> are about.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #985
************************