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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Kent,

In my opinion there's a huge difference between the postings in the 
early days of the GA (the ones you define as being done by "lunatics") 
and a debate on the legitimacy of extending the seating period of the 
initial Directors.

I may agree on the fact that it will have no influence - I am not 
expecting them to resign following this exchange of messages - but the 
opinion of one of the ICANN bodies about what is internal life of ICANN 
cannot be categorized at the same level of the traffic that was flooding
 the list one year ago.

Regards
Roberto



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