Re: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

[<chris@xxxxxx>]

Dominik, just tell me what you want me to do. I'm all for option 3 without the 
extra chatter.

Chris McElroy


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dominik Filipp 
  To: Hugh Dierker 
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 5:38 AM
  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