Re: [ga] (no subject)

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

All right this is a good compromise position.  I will refrain from my
negativity if this plan is implimented.  Having the existing Alt-Chair
take
up the very important role of establishing the rules and procedure for
the
Assembly is a worthy and safe goal.  Even if my perceived conflict of
interest were agreed by everyone, having Mr. Corliss work in this
capacity
should prevent the dangers of the conflict from causing an appearance of
illigitimacy.

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Younger is actually moving very quickly
in
his new position.  But I also appreciate the fact that NTIA and DOC and
several congressman are also moving very fast and being lobbied very
hard to
reassign the DoC contract for IANA services. We must move quickly to
establish our ligitimacy.

While it may seem distasteful to have all of this self criticism it is
essential that USG overseers view this openness and transparency and
recognize that we are moving quickly to remedy the failure to be
representative in policy decisions.

While censorship and list monitoring may seem a good salve to make the
list
more attractive it carries with it the extreme danger of thwarting our
efforts at bottoms up representation and openness and transparency. We
should try our chair's approach that if we have real focus in
mission(using
the WG-Review as an example) the abuses seem to curtail themselves.

Sincerely,


Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> To all.
> I suppose we could come back to a more sensible and therefore more
> acceptable approach of the issues at stake. If I may I would like to
> review some as they appear somewhat related.
>
> 1. Chairmanship
> IMHO the Chairs should not have an other agenda than to be the best
> servant of the ML. This was what Roberto and Harald roughly did.
>
> - this should not prevent them to participate to some threads, but it
>    would mostly be in helping new areas to be investigated or in
>    leading to consensus. So not to initiate new threats.
> - all our candidates - but the one who resigned - had an private
>    agenda.  We have to live with it. I note that the most active was
>    Eric and  the least was Patrick.
>
> 2. List Monitoring
> I made clear that complaints should be carried in the open through
> an automated system. Every position should be questionable -
> including Chair and List Monitor. But we have not that system yet.
>
> In the meanwhile I think it would be advisable that the Chair does
> not appoint the altChair as a List Monitor, in the best interest of both
> functions. Power separation is always the best. The best proof is
> that Patrick had immediately to publish a rule exception.
>
> 3. Call to the Order
> I wish to recall the Chairs that a good ML is first a well chaired
> one. For several days I have a motion pending, seconded, fully
> documented to have most of the discussions overloading this
> ML to be ported elsewhere with a clear agenda. This motion has
> not even been acknowledge by the Chair, and obviously not acted
> upon. Either by vote or by the creation of an ML.
>
> A second Motion by DPF with the same aim concerning a
> competing topic and other topics widely discussed has been
> seconded and documented. Not acknowledged.
>
> Instead of sending posts over posts asking to reduce the post
> number, abiding by the rules and making the posts to move
> another place seems a more reasonable way to attain a post
> reduction.
>
> 4. New Rules
> Our new Chairman explained he has been elected on a agenda
> which includes new rules to be set-up for this ML and the GA.
> He has explained that he has set-up a sub-list for that.
>
> I therefore call for:
> - that list to be Chaired by the alt-Chair as it is an important
>    issue where the Chair cannot commit himself
> - that list to be reminded to everyone until it gets its momentum
> - its works to be regularly (every week?) reported by a post of
>    its Chair to the GA.
>
> 5. Traffic
> When you have to rules natural life there is a problem. Auto-
> regulation has to be favored. I feel that the rule of 5 post is
> absurd. It can only serve in the case of someone keeping
> sending automated mails to the list.
>
> We have to find and adopt auto-regulation solutions, the most
> documented and accepted one being SIG MLs. Again: per topic
> ad Member initiative, one sub-ML, one link on the DNSO/GA
> page, position links on the sub-ML web site.
>
> 6. Conflicts of Interest
> Eric has a major point in saying that Patrick is in competition with
> iCANN. Actually iCANN has put itself in competition with quite all
> of us except those it pays or paid by its partners or future partners.
>
> This conflict does exist now with quite all the DNSO Members. The
> pretension of regulating the content through the TLD has now lead
> to the last conflict of interest (with NonCom at least) through the
> intended take over of ".org". Positions taken here concerning plan
> B shown that a lot of good reasons were at stake. Not to quote the
> IDNH/O issue.
>
> This question is fundamental to the DNSO/GA and to the future
> of the iCANN. However it should be very seriously investigated
> in a complete manner and not through Patrick's case:
>
> a) Patrick is on a non-profit Board (TLDA)
> b) among its targets TLDA aims at developing the iCANN in a
>      way iCANN should accept as conform to its bylaws
> c) several of the Members of this List are members of the TLDA
> d) Eric's assumption that non-legacy TLDs are out for money
>      is not necessarily true (I head non-profits associations for
>      TLDs totally compliant with the iCANN vision of new TLDs).
>      Also, the ccTLDs best practice and the gTLD contracts make
>      an obligation to legacy TLDs to look for money. There is not
>      anything equivalent at TLDA.
>
> I wish some reason prevails on this list. We all have many
> other things to do, starting with a better Internet. This list has
> no other interest that helping us to go that way.
>
> I thank all those sharing the same target to help us all to
> make it.
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> 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