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

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

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> I have said it before, this industry has more egos than Hollywood, only
> without the experience to handle them.

  Very true.  And as you may recall I tried to warn you when you first
came on the scene on the phone.  You were skeptical than.  I am now
glad you have seen the true element of the ICANN BoD, Staff, and the
"Hangers on" that surrounds this circus.

> 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.

  Indeed this is true and always has been sense nearly the beginning of
the "ICANN" development, and even years before with the IANA
but to a lesser extent, but none the less, still dam 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.

  Also true.  And if you had done some archive review in the IANA and ICANN
Comments@icann.org and Comments@iana.org you would have known
or been able to determine this early on as I also suggested to you and have
publicly posted to this forum on many occasions as have a few others of us
that have been involved for 5+ years...

>
>
> 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.

  Consensus is the central process issue that must be determined.  I said this
back in '98, and did a few others, some of which are still around, such as
Roeland Meyer.  I believe that the GA knows when a Consensus exists
if it is measured fairly accurately and without manipulation after a vote
is taken and before it is reported.

>
>
> 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.

  I am afraid to a great extent you are correct.  The same to a even greater
extent is true of the NC, ICANN BoD, and staff.

> 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.)

  I thought so to, and continue to.

>
>
> 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.

  Well stated and entirely accurate.

>
>
> I am probably the only one currently in the GA that is truly the "great
> unwashed" others falsely claim to be.

  Well now this is an exaggeration, Joanna.  Your ego is now showing!
You were doing great up to this point!  You just blew it!

> 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.

  To a great extent here, you are correct.  Be careful not to paint with too
broad a brush however.  A few of us have a huge amount of experience
in the media industry as well as policy development.

> Yet those same people seek to regulate the new media. They
> are not qualified to do so from a political and cultural standpoint.

  Yes this is true to a great extent too.  However be careful here again
by using a too broad a brush...

>
>
> 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.

  There is no one that I can think of that is a internet user that does not have

to one extent or another, and economic interest...

> 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.

  I am indeed very sorry to hear this form anyone, and maybe more so
coming from you.  :(

> 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.

  I believe I sent you mine.  I was very positive on our appraisal.  I hope
you read it carefully.

> 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.

  Well you seem to let others be trashed without this much concern,
if any???

>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>

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