RE: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Eric and others,
 
The resolution should gain more support within the GA to achieve al
least a certain degree of credibility.
 
I've been taking the bull by the horns for a while but this motion
shouldn't be a one man's show but rather a result of a comprehensible
deliberation over the issue discussed here. It all has started quite
encouragingly with number of Chris's, Jeff's and Karl's valuable
contributions, just mentioning a few. But the people here have
apparently started feeling frustrated and the number of relevant posts
has decreased rapidly.
 
I understand that everyone is already fed up with all that perpetual
ignorance but I see three ways how to proceed further. We can let things
slide, or chatter about everything during coffee breaks, or go into it.
As for me, I am wavering between the first and the third option. It
depends on the overall support gained here on the GA. Maybe some of us
are feeling frustrated or a bit paralyzed but I think the intellectual
potential presented here is a good basis for self-confidence. It is very
likely that we were able to collect more evidence than all other
official bodies have done so far collectively. In fact, only the
registrars/registries were able to issue relevant arguments worth
considering and elaborating on. The rest is mostly just a masquerade.
There is also another dimension to consider; an attempt to build up and
test a real bottom-up process to find out whether this is doable at all.
But the decision is, of course, up to everyone.
 
Ok, stop chattering now. Eric, the formal resolution will require some
sort of minor management as well as some small modifications to take
into effect. It is likely that once the motion gains more support the
daily post limit will be found insufficient. Also the resulting
resolution will likely be seconded and eventually issued as a pdf
document, ok? I personally do not want to discuss too much over the
management details but rather get it running and to correcting it on the
fly.
 
I can moderate this issue on the GA. The first step could be opening a
thread on the issue. I would start with the five registrars/registries
concerns enumerated in the official domain tasting report. Several posts
sent here already address these concerns more in detail so those can be
further discussed or recollected.
 
Would it be acceptable?
 
Dominik


________________________________

From: Hugh Dierker [mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:23 AM
To: Dominik Filipp; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Formal resolution


Dominik,
 
Absolutely. Somehow we should start with taking our header string and
actually narrowing it down further as there are some relevant yet
innapplicable posts there.
The person - selfulfilling, most interested in the matter should take
the bull by the horns.
I of course will be here to assist as will many other GA members. 
We will be heard if a credible resolution is passed.
 
Eric



        
        Eric,
        
        What about to prepare the more formal GA resolution regarding
the AGP
        you have proposed?
        We could start collecting relevant points regarding this.
        
        Dominik
        
        ________________________________
        
        > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
        Behalf Of Hugh Dierker
        > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:18 PM
        > To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
        
        > ...
        
        > We are at a point for the first time in months,
        > that the list is coalescing into the form of
        > producing a statement/motion. The AGP issue
        > seems to have come to a head and more formal
        > resolution procedures may be appropriate.
        > I believe it is at a motion stage with 4 seconds.
        > If the desire is to move forward in a constructive
        > effective matter, we should hear that from the members.
        
        > Eric