[ga-full] Re: Compromise (Re: [ga] Another Resignation)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Harald and all,

  You left our a few issues as well as quite a few peoples voices
as well.  Here are some of the issues you rather interestingly left out:

1.) Whether Roberto or Harald are legitimate or legitimately elected
      as "Chair" and "Co-Chair".
2.) Wheather or not the election was Legitimate.
3.) Whether or not the DNSO General assembly should be the
      defining body to elect remaining ICANN Board members.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 08:04 11.02.00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> >The problem is Harald, we haven't even seen a reasonable attempt beyond
> >your original document which was instituted in its entirety despite
> >substantial debate on specific provisions.
>
> Let's see....I made a list of issues that I thought controversial.
> These included:
>
> - Whether there should be a requirement for identification:
>    6 opinions voiced, 4 in favour. Proposal kept.
> - Whether people should be allowed to participate under an assumed name:
>    2 opinions voiced, both in favour. Proposal changed.
> - Whether mail addresses should be public (WHO command)
>    7 opinions voiced, 4 against. Proposal kept.
> - Whether the unfiltered list should be archived:
>    9 opinions voiced, 8 in favour. Proposal changed.
> - Whether the unfiltered archive should be public:
>    10 opinions voiced, 6 in favour, 4 against. Proposal changed.
>
> I don't see this as "instituting the original document in its entirety".
>
> >  There is also the issue of
> >which list an individual is subscribed to by default, which I strongly
> >believe should be the *unfiltered* list. I am quite capable and happy to
> >spend the 30 seconds or so it takes to subscribe to the filtered list.
> >However this too didn't seem to be up for compromise.
>
> Indeed it did not seem so.
> This question is the core of our disagreement.
> I believe that the GA, in order to function, must function as a
> deliberative assembly. And the assembly must have exactly one place that is
> its place of discussion - not two.
>
> The "default is the unfiltered list" sounds so innocent - but it defines
> the assembly's place of discussion to be that list.
>
> I believe that it is *required* for *any* assembly to have rules that allow
> chastising of improper behaviour, including allowing someone to be
> "virtually ejected" from the assembly, by being refused the right to speak.
> I also believe that this is a very drastic measure, and one not to be
> undertaken lightly. On the requirements for imposing this measure, and on
> the rules for coming to a conclusion that they must be imposed, I am
> willing to compromise a lot - as long as the result does not require
> something known to be impossible (such as an unanimous vote by the GA.....).
>
> But on the basic principle - that an assembly, in order to have civil
> discourse, must have the right to refuse people the right to speak *in the
> designated forum of that assembly* - I don't see the possibility of compromise.
>
> It is a clear YES or NO. No third alternative is possible.
>
>                       Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html