Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

Mr. Crispin and everyone,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:06:59PM -0500, Paul Svensson wrote:
> > I don't see you being silent on the list Chuck, so I don't understand
> > what "your case" would be, or how it is relevant here.  As I see it,
> > there are only two reasons for anyone to be silent in the debate:
> >
> >       1) The outcome is not important enough for them to bother with it,
> >       2) They accept the consensus of those participating in the debate.
> >
> > Either way, consensus can only be measured among the participants,
> > whether there are fifty or 5 billion quiet bystanders, is totally
> > irrelevant
>
> As Chuck pointed out, there are many reasons.  The one I am most
> concerned about is a variation of your 1) above:
>
>     3) The outcome is not important for them because the opinion of the
>     GA is irrelevant.

  Why is this even a consideration?  The opinion should be predominant.

>
>
> To put it in other words, the major issue before the GA is not the
> credibility (legitimacy) of the Board.  The issue is the credibility
> (legitimacy) of the GA.

  Rather I think you have this reversed, Mr. Crispin.

>
>
> There is a very good reason that the GA has so little influence/power in
> the bylaws.  That reason is that *many* people feared that the GA would
> simply be a magnet for lunatics, idealogues, etc, and would do more harm
> than good to any constructive activity.

  This seems to represent a paranoiac attitude that should be greatly
discounted and not given serious consideration.

>  The early days of the GA,
> before the list rules were in place, amply confirmed those fears.

In who's opinion?  Yours and a very few others?

>  It
> wasn't too many months ago where the major traffic on this list was
> dirty limricks from Joe Baptista.  Many people left the list; the people
> who worried about whether the GA could work saw their concerns born out
> in full, and have written off the GA entirely.

  The GA was written off by a large number of than participants because
of the SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP practices of the Chair and Co-Chair.
Those practices are still in effect and should be eradicated immediately.

>
>
> The GA, in other words, has a large burden of proof in making the case
> that it is a serious body that merits attention in ICANN processes.

Again in who's opinion?  Yours perhaps, Mr. Crispin?

>
> There has been perhaps some small progress in credibility since the
> list rules went into effect.  But pointless resolutions demanding that
> Directors resign etc have undone all that.

  Why would the GA's posted resolutions or motions b for the removal
or impeechment of directors have anything to do with creditability?  If
the consensus of opinion of the GA is that such action via a motion
and/or resolution is made and seconded, than it should come to
a vote or a GA poll impromptu should be taken on such motions
or resolutions.  Is this not a reasonable proceedure?  If not, pray
tell us all why it isn't.

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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

Bob Davis


____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
--
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