RE: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dominik
 
I think this is a great step forward.  I also think that it would be quite
possible for the daily posting limit on specific GA relevant issues to be
raised - obviously this is at the discretion of the Chair.
 
Many thanks for your valued input.
 
Debbie


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Dominik Filipp
Sent: 16 April 2008 10:38
To: Hugh Dierker
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution


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