Re: [ga] Does someone knows the REAL rules?

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

I have said it before, this industry has more egos than Hollywood, only
without the experience to handle them. It's not just ICANN Board squatters
and the NC that are overrun, many in the GA are not willing to risk whatever
territory they have carved out for themselves either. It is all pervasive.

I am witnessing a series of pompous pronouncements as to what "they" will
accept from "us" on the IDNH/IDNO Issue and when pressed to be specific on
any practical aspects, of course the egos are silent. Egos are not very good
at real work that has to stand up to scrutiny.

As Danny has said, the NC wouldn't know consensus if it bit them, and
equally, the GA wouldn't recognize a concrete system to achieve consensus if
it bit them - and by all accounts, it has not.

I had hoped that the GA wanted to work with rational and sensible criteria
to achieve consensus, but clearly the criteria is well below the priority of
satisfying egos. The trouble with egos is, that the more you feed them, the
larger they grow. At the same time, I think that the months of ego-less,
diligent hard work and legal expertise that Bill Lovell has put it in to the
BP initiative, with Graphic support from Kendall Dawson, deserves at the
very least the common civility of a response from the GA. (Certainly Pindar
Wong thought so with his appreciate response off-list.)

It is simply outrageous that the first real piece of substantive work to be
produced in months from the bottom-up, whatever it's merits may be, whatever
my personal involvement may have been, has been passed over and dismissed
out of hand, while an old one-page proposal is tossed onto the list with the
click of a mouse, and draws serious comments, simply because the name that
put it there has more clout and a bigger ego to satisfy. Personally, I don't
care where a good idea comes from, but that would seem a minority opinion in
this industry, and it's exactly this kind of ongoing squandering of
bottom-up talent, in favor of feeding the established egos, that will
continue to result in failures of the bottom-up system.

I am probably the only one currently in the GA that is truly the "great
unwashed" others falsely claim to be. The term is derogatory and insulting
in the extreme. No mainstream media industry would *ever* refer to the
general public in this way and it only goes to show the inexperience of
those involved. Yet those same people seek to regulate the new media. They
are not qualified to do so from a political and cultural standpoint.

I am probably the only one among you who has no vested interest in the
economic success or failure of the DNS and the internet, only it's impact in
political and cultural ways. I did not ask for the internet to be invented,
and frankly, it has not improved my quality of life as I would have liked it
to do, whereas it has and continues to have adverse effects. That's why I
came here and why I have put up with the derision and personal insults.
Having given the best part of my day to the GA for many months, in the hope
of making some small improvements to the way it is run for the public
benefit, I have reached a  "bottom-up line", and it is this:-

There is a Call for Action on concrete proposals for how the input into this
"open process" is duly considered, documented and assimilated in a bottom-up
ICANN consensus development process for the public benefit. This is a
crucial issue on which the success or failure of all other uissues rests.
You have one such proposal before you to consider. If I do not see 10 well
considered and constructive appraisals of Bill Lovell's Best Practices
initiative within 7 days of the date of this posting, you can expect me to
withdraw from all involvement in the GA next Wednesday 22nd August. In
short, I will not stand by and witness the trashing of an extremely astute
and talented individual, who is only here with the best of intentions for
the public good.

Regards,
Joanna


on 8/15/01 3:28 PM, William S. Lovell at wsl@cerebalaw.com wrote:

> Jefsey:
> 
> I believe the answer is that there are none. That's why issues have
> been bouncing back and forth for years with no results.  Since the
> ICANN documents say that the GA is to "self-organize" so as to
> be able to create "bottom-up" policy suggestions, and since one
> must have some set of rules by which to do that, that is what we
> are doing: we are self-organizing a set of rules.
> 
> And nothing is being "enforced": the GA has the choice of
> continuing to waller in babble for a few more years, or of
> adopting some clear cut means for arriving at decisions.  The
> Best Practices draft sets out (or will, when Parts III and IV
> are finished) such a clear cut means.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
>> On 21:38 09/07/01, Joanna Lane said:
>>> according to our BEST PRACTICES Draft Document
>> 
>> Could someone tell me where I can find the REAL rules in use?
>> 
>> I only hear from people wanting to enforce their own conceptions.
>> Jefsey
>> 
>> --
>> 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
> 
> --
> Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
> possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
> Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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