Re: [ga] Please stop NOW

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Greg Burton wrote:

> Joop, William, Dassa, Jeff, and anyone else:
>
> I resigned from IDNO because of this constant back and forth garbage. Get
> it out of here, please - there is no law that says you have to respond on
> this list, and I'm very offended that it's spilling over to the GA..

Ditto for me.

> We have serious work to get done here, and it's getting drowned out by the
> garbage. Did it ever occur to ANY of you that every single "but I have to
> respond because X is saying Y" post you write makes it that much harder for
> any of us to be taken seriously? You all can complain about not being
> listened to as much as you want, the sad reality is that people don't
> listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing
> relevent to listen to.

The real truth of it, of course, is that these people don't listen because they
were not inclined to listen in the first place.  All the claptrap just provides
the evidence they'll use against us.  It is increasingly becoming clear that most
of this is quite probably a sham, and a front play.  The object is clear: to
divert attention and productive work from the @Large Membership.  What strikes me
as odd here, is that the question of involvement in DNSO matters is so preeminent,
at a time when the need for work in the @Large is so crucial.  A diversionary
tactic intendended to legitimize one forum, at the very dear expense of another?
I'm awake now!  The change in ICANN can only come from within, this is true.  But
who is "within"?  I think it has become increasingly clear what is going on here.

Why legitimize and give "organization" to the DNSO, and not the World @Large
herself?  At the end of the two-year study, Carl Bildt is going to look at
substance.  When he sees no SUBSTANCE in any @LARGE group, he will conclude it is
an unecessary appendage.  Is any @Large Member here willing to trade their @Large
Membership for some vague, undefined spot in some vague, undefined constituency?
Not to mention that it would be within a vague overall constituency structure and
process...  The ICANN ByLaws clearly state: 9 @Large Directors, yet there are only
5, and you people are making a fuss over A PROPOSAL for *constituency* status in
the DNSO?  The carrot and the mule is a classic tale, surely!

> There are three sets of motions on the table - Jefsey's and Kevin's motions
> on election, and the complete bylaws re-write I'm proposing. There is an
> election that absolutely needs to happen, and nominations in process. This
> is the last day for DNSO comments on the preliminary review task force report.

Why don't we ask ICANN to set up a list for the @Large Membership?  Perhaps we
could take all this discussion into an @Large perspective?  We've had our input...
as much as they're willing to listen to anyway.  Look what's happening now... the
GA list is a circus!  I believe that as soon as the swill began running over from
the IDNO list, it should have immediately been curtailed by the powers that be.
Sadly, it was not, and this fact speaks volumes about the very nature of the
disruptions themselves..

> Try to focus on substance related to the GA, please - IDNO garbage by
> definition isn't it.

How about we altogether focus on the @Large instead?  Divert all this brain power
and goodwill, and focus it on the @Large?  After all, it's not like the DNSO is
paying us to do their work for them... or are they paying, but just not all of us?

Remember to buy your love a Rose on Valentine's Day,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

--
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