Re[2]: [ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Derek,

What happened to :
"I believe that I have said enough on this subject"  ?

Thursday, June 14, 2001, 7:29:44 AM, Derek Conant wrote:

> The body of representatives I have suggested set scheduled agenda.  I suggest that
> that GA body strictly follow the agenda and schedule.  The body of representatives
> should weigh constructive information in the GA forum and put forth their own
> opinions regarding subject matter and/or ask for more information regarding the
> subject matter.  For this to work, the process is open and transparent.

> There will be some who cannot do more than chat in the GA forum.  I stress that
> the GA body should ignore the static that is not constructive and move forward
> with the GA schedule and establish GA positions from the valid consensus.  I
> believe that what I have proposed with the GA body will stop most of the static
> currently in the GA and snap the GA into line.

> Do we have 9 people willing to stand behind the GA for 2 months?  If we do, then
> we have the GA body I have suggested and the ability to produce valid GA
> positions.  1 week before the GA body 2 month term expires, the GA active
> participants review the GA body performance and replaces certain representatives
> if this is decided by the GA active participants.  This should cause the GA body
> representatives to make of record why they support, or don't support, subject
> matter.  This further fosters the valid consensus process and the development of
> GA positions.

> At some point the GA needs to grow up.  There is no malicious conspiracy in this
> and I believe that the active participants want the GA to work.  Therefore, it
> will work.

> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman

> Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>> 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@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@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



-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net


--
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