[ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear DPF,
you propose us 7 or 9 "Patrick Corlisses", i.e. good will people trying to 
make enforced an agenda without corrdination nor conesensus. This will 
result in :

- 11 mails a day about the discussions of this group to be public or not
- 5 about the fact they must be archived or not
- 3 about them being on the the GA-Full but noton the GA
- 7 from Patrick explaining that this dicussion is to be on ga-review
- 1 from Danny to say it should be on ga-icann, then that it is true it 
could be on ga-review
- 5 from each "director" to remind people that they should remember their 
own agenda
- 11 from people saracastic about the 5 reminders
- 3 good will mail to calm down the sarcastics
- 7 mails to explain how we could find a better system
- 12 supporting a similar policy to the one of the 7 or 9 directors in 
their areas (i.e. 84 to 108)
- 5 to propose new interests
-  3 proposing a better organization for the ExecComm
- 2 proposing every two days a new name for the ExecComm
- 13 to abusively explain why so and so is stupid about criticising the 
Director
- 9 explaining why one Director has better understood the agenda of another 
Director than that Director
- 3 feeling abused by the mails from the Directors and asking them to clarify
- 7 to explain that the Director abuse cannot be legally handdle as we are 
international
- 3 explaining that in their place the law is different and could apply
- 2 asking why we could not make that law entered in the bylaws
- 7 explaining that all this mess is the fault of Louis Touton, Lynn Stuart...
- 12 asking if at the end of the day the DNSO GA could not be interested in 
DNS matters.
etc..; etc...

Jefsey

On 08:19 14/06/01, DPF said:
>On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:00 -0700, William Walsh wrote:
>
> >Hello Derek,
> >
> >There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
> >does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
> >results.
>
>My initial reaction to Derek's proposal was pretty negative but having
>thought about it further I believe his proposal actually has
>considerable merit which may be worth considering.
>
>Almost every organisation in the world has some sort of executive
>committee to co-ordinate and make sure things happen.  There is a
>reason for this model - because it works.
>
>Now once upon a time I might have suggested that the Names Council is
>effectively the executive of the GA but this is clearly not the case.
>The GA has no real relationship with the NC.  The GA does not elect
>the NC, in fact the NC appoints the GA Chair.  The NC has no
>obligation to help the GA function better even though individual
>members may be supportive.
>
>So perhaps there is merit in having the GA elect its own Executive.
>This would be an Executive with no *powers* but with responsibility.
>Of course they would have an open mailing list but they would act also
>as an agenda former where they spend extra time on considering what
>issues are upcoming, leading consultation on them, putting together a
>draft position paper and then having the GA endorse or modify it.
>
>These sort of things can be done by an group of 7 - 9 people far
>easier than a mailing list of 200.  And with a more shared workload
>than on 1 or 2 people only.  Everything would still come back to the
>GA for endorsement but in an easily debatable form.
>
>If the "Exec" fail to be useful or even worse a hindrance the members
>can be replaced or even the thing dropped as an experiment.
>
>However currently as a GA we are incredibly dysfunctional and upon
>reflection the idea of an accountable organising cmte/exec might be
>useful to improve our output.  I believe it is certainly worth
>considering.
>
>DPF
>--
>david@farrar.com
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>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