Re: [ga] DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

Maybe what you realize is the necessity of a names council (this is what you
called it) type governing body for the GA itself.  What else is going to be
qualified to rationalize the noise in the GA forum and what else will have the
ability to move the forum forward efficiently through establishing GA positions
regarding subject matter?

The difference in what I proposed is that the 9 GA representatives can be held
accountable through the open and transparent process that shows how they
determined their positions.  If the 9 GA representatives do not perform
accordingly, then the GA representatives are replaced by the active participants
during the GA representatives' review process.

Another point is that I suggested that the 9 GA representatives' terms are for
only 2 months at a time.  This gives the GA active participants the ability to
review the GA representatives' performance and positions.

It is easy to criticize, however, we also need solutions to the problems facing
the DNSO GA organization.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

L Gallegos wrote:

> Derek, you have just described the equivalent to the names council, but
> within the GA.  Another layer of beaurocracy.
>
> On 12 Jun 2001, at 20:20, Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > The DNSO needs to move forward, whereas, it does not appear to be making
> > progress.  There may be indeed hundreds of posts within this forum,
> > however, that does not show that the organization is anything more than a
> > general chat channel.
> >
> > The DNSO needs to move forward and to do this I propose the following
> > DNSO GA restructuring suggestions:
> >
> >
> > DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING
> > ======================
> >
> > 1.  Forget counting everyone's votes.  GA representatives should take
> > control over the non-active participants in this forum and move this
> > process forward.
> >
> > 2.  The DNSO GA should rely on the votes of 9 qualified GA
> > representatives that continually demonstrate their constructive
> > participation.  It should be easy for the active participants here to
> > decide who the 9 GA representatives should be, as based upon their
> > demonstrated, verifiable and constructive participation.
> >
> > I could begin to qualify the following individuals as GA
> > representatives:
> > 1.    Sotiris Souteropolis
> > 2.    William Walsh
> > 3.    Jefsey Morphin
> > 4.    Marilyn Cade
> > 5.    Eric Dierker
> > 6.    Leah Gallegos
> > 7.    Joop Teenstra
> > 8.    Bret Fausett
> > 9.    Joanna Lane
> > 10.  Roeland Meyer
> > 11.  David Farrar
> > 12.  Kent Crispin
> > 13.  Derek Conant
> > 14.  Patrick Corliss
> > 15.  Patrick Greenwell
> > 16.  Jim Fleming
> > 17.  Sandy Harris
> > 18.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> > 19.  Jeffrey Williams
> > 20.  Danny Younger
> > 21.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.
> >
> > 3.  The 9 qualified representatives will hold their posts for only 2
> > months.  1 Week before the expiration of the representative's 2 month
> > term, the GA active participants again vote for 9 qualified
> > representatives.
> >
> > 4.  The 9 GA representatives request input from GA members for GA
> > agenda.  The 9 GA representatives give the GA members several days to
> > respond, then the 9 GA representatives weigh the information contributed to
> > the forum and vote on the GA's position.
> >
> > 5.  GA members may suggest new material and subject matter that is
> > considered off topic.  However, the GA's current position and schedule must
> > be clearly posted and informative and the GA will schedule such new
> > material for consideration for the following weeks agenda.
> >
> > 6.  Regardless of the GAs current position, it must be open to new
> > perspectives and be flexible enough to change its position upon
> > constructive information.
> >
> > 7.  It should take only 1 week or less for the GA to develop or change it
> > position from information received within its scheduled agenda from GA
> > members.  It should not take several months to produce GA agenda or
> > positions.
> >
> > 9.  The process is open and transparent and GA members will see how the 9
> > GA representatives reached their conclusions.
> >
> > 8.  Only 9 people vote on GA subject matter.  I believe that the 9 GA
> > representatives will want the GA process to be successful and therefore
> > will use their best judgment in representing GA positions.
> >
> > This is the beginning of what I was trying to describe through the
> > DNSGA's APO concept or model at
> > http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> >
> > I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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