On 11/17/10 2:04 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:54:30AM -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
A reasonable observation. The responsibility to ensure that the nuances
of dependency were correctly noted in the past, or are correctly noted in
the present, remain. If only every "i" had been correctly crossed, every
"t" correctly dotted...
If that's the issue, then we're in very deep water indeed. RFCs 1034
and 1035 are not without ambiguity.
Loosely speaking, there is something that superficially resembles an
obligation
I meant it in the simple sense that, given that they're the people
making the policies, they have the responsibility to do certain work.
It's only that sort of implicit obligation, and I'll cheerfully (well,
glumly, but I'm not exactly Tigger) concede that legal ones are
probably not there.
I tried to make the point that specific competency matters when
offering a comment on the proposal to reform or abolish the Technical
Liaison Group.
The authors of that proposal did something I've never encountered in
all my years of ICANN participation, they contacted me because I
didn't agree with them, and asked questions. The paragraph in the note
you've responded to on the obligation ICANN has to gracefully, or
gracelessly, accept clue-by-fours, absent any participation on its
Board since the 2002 by-laws change, was written reflecting my
thoughts on the problem of specific competency and responsibility when
only an advisory or incidental decision making standing exists.
The URL for public comments is:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/tlg-review-2010/
And I suspect gloomy old Eeyore is more on-point than cheerful and
bouncy Tigger.
Eric
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
