Re: [ga] Propoganda

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:28:53 +1200, Joop wrote:

>At 23:07 26/06/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
>>I have been nominated (and accepted) as a potential GA representative
>>on the Names Council review Taskforce.
>
>By whom?

Fellow GA member Steven Heath

>>Some people seem to believe that those pushing for an individual's
>>constituency do so only so that they can push their own self interests
>>by gaining a place on the Names Council etc.
>
>The  person who has actually made such preposterous accusations is William 
>X Walsh.
>What is the purpose of repeating them?

Joop I was not referring to the history between you and William at
all.  You and William both support having an IDNH, even if you both
come from it at various angles.  My concern is more with those who are
against there being one at all and do think the call for an IDNH is
the unwashed rabble wanting a seat around the table for themselves.  

>Are you supporting the idea that those who sit on the Names Council do so 
>out of  self-interest?

No I don't say that is the case case for all MC members or even
necessarily some.  What I am saying is that the importance of getting
an IDNH constituency is of such paramount importance that I want to
remove the ability of anyone to suggest the motives for my involvement
anyway are self interest.  There will be people who will suspect
self-interest as a motivator so my statement is merely meant to disarm
that accusation before it can fester.

I have a track record for doing this sort of thing.  As you know I was
one of a group of people who felt ISOCNZ was heading in the wrong
direction last year and I took a leading role in the (successful)
efforts to replace most of the Council of ISOCNZ and Board of the
registry company DOMAINZ.  As I was the most visible "plotter"
involved in arranging these sweeping changes I declined nomination for
both ISOCNZ Council and/or DOMAINZ Board.  It was only last week a
year later that I finally stood.

So don't feel my statement about ruling myself out for an IDNH elected
leadership position or inaugural rep on NC is aimed at any other
person in the GA.  It is merely carrying on a principle of mine I have
followed in years and years of involvement in organisations.

>>  As I have stated in my
>>biography I will refuse any inaugural elected position within an
>>Individual's Constituency should one be formed, including being a rep
>>on the Names Council.
>
>The inaugural elected position is going to be the toughest.
>What do you intend to do to help organizing the Individuals' Constituency 
>after the Task Force has come up with its RFP?

Be an active member willing to do hard work and participate with
ideas.  One does not have to be an elected rep to make a significant
contribution to an organisation.  Have no doubt that I do not see my
involvement ending with the Taskforce.

>Last question: In discussions on the idno-discuss list and elsewhere, you 
>favoured an Individuals constituency made up of organizations rather than 
>of Individuals.
>Will you promote this position on the Task Force?

Nope.  The role is not to promote my personal preferences but to try
and ascertain consensus of GA and lobby/negiotate and even that dirty
word compromise to come up with a solution.

I do have some attraction to exploring the notion of the INDH
constituency consisting of a number of (possibly regionally based)
member organisations which represent name holders.  However there
seemed to be very little enthusiasm for the idea when I floated it so
I've filed it in a back drawer!

The rationale behind wanting to investigate it was how in a
constituency do we protect the rights of a minority.  How do we give
the 49% minority a say?  Allowing people to join sub-groups which best
align with their views and allocating representative rights on the
basis of membership strength was one possible way to do this.  But
there are others I am sure.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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