Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO APPLICATION TIMETABLE

Joop Teernstra (terastra@terabytz.co.nz)
Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:27:39 +1200


At 18:21 5/01/99 +0100, Roberto wrote:

>> Will they be incorporated in your draft revision?
>> How will this be decided? With a vote of all discuss@dnso.org list
>> participants?
>>
>Tough question.
>The timescale (deadline for application: Feb. 5) implies that we will not
>have enough time for a public poll (also because I don't see why it should
>be limited to one single list), but on the other hand I don't see how we can
>possibly present an application that does not have enough support.
>
Roberto and all,

Some humble suggestions.
If you give voting rights to participants in one list, (and announce it on
the other lists) everybody interested in voting on the substantial issues
will gravitate to that list.
This will benefit your discussion on substance.
OTOH, to ask for comments to a one-way email adress (proposals@dnso.org)
will not allow people to see each other's comments and discourages
submissions.
Better to keep the comments coming to the discuss@ list.

>My proposal is to encourage comments on the substance of the draft (up to
>now the great part of the traffic on the lists was on the question "Is
>DNSO.ORG open?", rather than "What does the DNSO.ORG propose?"), and somehow
>we will tally the opinions, then come to a final wrap-up (the tentative date
>is Jan. 22) for a final version, with short verification on the list(s).
>

I was also disappointed about the lack of substance on the discuss list. An
early posting about the fee structure was simply ignored.
But unfortunately the openness discussion was justified.
The best course of action will now be to see if you can bridge the
differences with the dnso.net bylaws and bring the people together.
It will not be easy.

>Of course, if the participation in terms of comments is close to zip, and
>attendance to the wrap-up meeting is the people we had before (plus, maybe,
>INTA), then the whole process is not worthed the effort, and we may as well
>go to ICANN with a set of separate applications, and lose some more time
>(which is exactly what some people asked Santa Claus for).
>
Not me or the Domain Name Owners in general. I know NSI is laughing all
the way to the bank.
But in my humble view the question of ICANN's authority and mandate needs
to be settled first before the SO's can fall into place.
We had a 5 December "deadline" on applications for ICANN's MAC.
We are still waiting for the MAC members to introduce themselves and start
the promised public deliberations.

--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/