Re: Thanks for support DPF - Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Derek and all assembly members,

Derek Conant wrote:

> Don't worry.  For some of you I am going to let this idea of 9 GA
> Directors subject go to the way side if it does not receive more support.

  Good.  It is not getting very much support thus far...

>
>
> When I first proposed the idea of 9 GA Directors, I was responding to the
> GA's call for a Membership Drive to enlist the general public and I was
> responding to claims that the GA lacks funding.  I originally called the 9
> GA Directors "GA representatives".  The term GA Directors developed later
> when I realized the description I was giving the GA representatives was
> similar to that as the role of Directors.
>
> I am uncomfortable with having used the term GA Directors, however, the
> term does better describe what I meant by GA representatives.
>
> The GA Chair representative appears to need assistance in maintaining
> direction, creating agenda and establishing GA positions.

  The members can do this themselves through proposing MOTIONS
or RESOLUTIONS, Derek.  Than a WG can be set up, hopefully
funded adequately from the GA members themselves and/or the
ICANN BoD.

>  It is normal
> for the Chair to have a Board of Directors or certain close
> representatives to assist with the direction of an organization.

  This is where you seem to not understand the difference between
and ORGANIZATION and an ASSEMBLY.  The GA=General
Assembly.  It is NOT an ORGANIZATION.  A huge difference.

>  The GA
> is the most diverse constituency of all of the DNSO constituencies.

  The GA is not a CONSTITUENCY either, Derek.  It is and ASSEMBLY.

>  The
> GA Chair should not be expected to single-handedly run the GA.  That some
> of the GA active participants don't get this surprises me.

  We do get it I think.  What is needed if the funding to set up the WG's
by which specific issues can be adequately pursued.

>
>
> My position is that the GA cannot validate and count everyone's vote and
> that the GA needs a body of representatives within the GA membership to
> review and weigh the information the GA receives through the GA forum.

  Sure it can validate everyone's vote.  We have a voting process for the
some 300+ GA voters.  It works fairly well when not changed in the
middle of a vote on and issue, motion or resolution.

>
> - snip -
>
> We have Danny and Joanna talking about luring potential members to the GA
> through some Membership Drive solicitation program.  We have complaints
> that the GA is not funded.  Without a certain body of representatives
> within the GA membership to assist the Chair in managing information
> submitted to the GA forum, the GA will be incapable of establishing valid
> consensus and GA positions.

  The problem is in funding WG's not representation within the DNSO GA.

>
>
> Another point I should make is that the GA cannot rely on counting votes,
> especially when we do not know who is voting and it will be difficult to
> end debate and begin counting votes.

  Any ballot should remain secret.  So I am not seeing the concern here
that you purport to exist in this specific area.

>  The GA should rely on information
> received and the GA should rely on the votes from a certain body of
> representatives within the GA membership.

  No. The GA members should vote on each Motion or Resolution before it.

> The GA should not rely on
> counting all of the votes from the whole of its members.  The GA will not
> accomplish anything worthwhile if it relies on counting all of the votes
> from the whole of its members.

  As has been documented, it already has relied on the counting of it's votes
from all of the GA members.

>
>
> For the GA to function it will eventually need to employ a certain body of
> representatives within the GA membership to assist the Chair.

  Yes these would be WG chairs, not representatives.

> - snip -
>
> What I have proposed I suggest should be implemented as an experiment.
> What I have proposed cannot hurt the current GA process and what I have
> proposed may work if we can find 9 people who will stand behind the GA.  I
> am beginning to believe that the GA does not have 9 people who are willing
> to do more than chat.  Chat is not valid consensus.

  It is true that "Chat" is not valid consensus.  True consensus can only
be established by the voting members of the GA.

>
>
> I believe that I have said enough on this subject without more help from
> GA members.

  Good, lets let it go by the way side.

>
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> DPF wrote:
>
> > 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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