Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

[kstubbs@digitel.net (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)]

i did not object to the points that roland made (although i dont agree with
them).

i objected to the lauguage and personal attack calling kent a liar.
roland was active in orsc and i feel that their civil discourse rule were
very fair and balanced

please dont attempt to twist my comments here simon.

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>
To: General assembly list <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
change seating rule)


> At 11:32 PM 11/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> The ORSC rules can be found here:
>
> http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/
>
> If you wish to make a complaint about a posting on this list, you should
> forward that complaint to the GA list moderator under the list rules that
> Harald posted/proposed earlier.
>
> However, censorship and civil discourse rules are two separate things.
Just
> because you don't like what someone else says, it doesn't make what they
> are saying "wrong".
>
> >too bad the orsc civil discourse rules dont apply here.
> >roland would be spending time in the "penalty box" .
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
> >To: <ga@dnso.org>
> >Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 7:28 PM
> >Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
> >change seating rule)
> >
> >
> > > This message is being resent because there seems to be a disconnect
going
> > > on. The last I heard, the context was the GA and this is certainly the
GA
> > > mailing list. I was talking about the GA, or am I moving too fast for
> >y'all?
> > >
> > > The "we" in item 1 is the GA. However, I may have confused some of you
> >with
> > > my reference to the general NC body. It is opening yet another can of
> >worms
> > > when we discuss formation and instantiation of the various
constituencies.
> > > They were created by fiat, by the ICANN BoD. They were captured by the
> > > power-clique and I don't consider their NC representitives fairly
elected.
> > > That is my opinion, one that cannot be changed without proof, that
various
> > > constituencies are not willing/able to provide. It certainly isn't
> >available
> > > to any GA member.
> > >
> > > In addition, it is certainly telling that the constituencies serve on
an
> > > at-will basis. Ergo, they are 100% at the behest of the ICANN BoD. If
they
> > > don't do what the BoD asks, or they cause too much upheaval, then the
BoD
> > > can dissolve that constituency. Hence my statement that the NC is an
> > > appointed body.
> > >
> > > Lacking a constituency for individual domain name owners and small
> > > businesses, the GA is forced to assume that role. Yet, it is not
allowed
> >to
> > > select its own NC rep. Jonathan may be a fine individual, but he
really
> > > should step down in favour of the real GA choice, Jamie Love, whom
> >garnered
> > > almost twice as many votes.
> > >
> > > No, the NC is not an elected body, it is appointed, or near enough so
as
> >to
> > > not make much/any difference.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > 1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried and we
> >failed.
> > > The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the wishes
of
> >the
> > > GA. That record is clear.
> > >
> > > 2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there is, show it
to
> > > me.
> > >
> > > 3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN BoD is
the
> > > sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.
> > >
> > > Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. However,
this is
> > > the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You are usually
not
> > > this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are feeling too
well.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:20 AM
> > > > To: ga@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General
> > > > Assembly call to
> > > > change seating rule)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?
> > > >
> > > > The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and
> > > > balances on
> > > > *any* elected body -- if you don't like what your representatives
do,
> > > > you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.
> > > > That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery about
the
> > > > NC in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >--
> >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
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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