Re: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

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

Eric and all assembly members,

  Nicely stated and evaluated!  >;)  A bit on the dramatic side, but well
done none the less!  >;)

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Kent,
>
> I actually had to give this a lot of thought.  Danged if I did not have to give it
> some research, and then some more thought.
>
> Do the special interests groups have more say than the assembly of the individuals
> of all special interest groups?
>
> If that is so then a restructuring is certainly in order.
>
> A capture within one special interest group outlaws a voice for the dissent?
> Restructure is in order.
>
> The elite dictate the leadership of the individuals?  Restructure is in order.
>
> Security of the mega corps co ops the rights of the consumers?  Restructure is in
> order.
>
> What open and transparent forum determined to change the format of the MDR
> meeting?  If any nation pulled a stunt like this it would lose IMF, WTO, and BTA
> status quicker than greased lightnin.
>
> Are there any ISOs that apply to your ICANN?
>
> All in all Kent your comments were correct within the given parameters of hell.
>
> Eric
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:55:27PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > William,
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I challenge anyone who opposes my request to tell me that our Chair
> > > >and Alt-Chair have been effective, and to do so with a straight face.
> > > >Opposing the request because you think a poor chair is acceptable,
> > > >rather than seeking something more than simply acceptable, is
> > > >irresponsible.
> > >
> > > What is irresponsible, IMHO, is to bring the matter to the NC when we are
> > > struggling for demonstrating that we don't need NC's "adult supervision"
> > > for the GA Chairmanship.
> >
> > This concern, IMO, is misplaced because your model is fundamentally
> > flawed.  It is flawed because it views the GA and the NC as two
> > independent bodies, rather than as parts of the same body.  According to
> > the bylaws it is indeed the NC that is charged with "managing the
> > consensus process" for the entire DNSO, and therefore, it has the
> > responsibility for maintaining standards of interaction and so on --
> > that is, "adult supervision" is precisely its job.  The problem, in
> > other words, is not that the GA needs to demonstrate it's ability to
> > function independently -- the problem is that the NC has been remiss in
> > its job of managing the GA from the beginning.  It is the NC that should
> > have instituted list rules, not the GA.  It is the NC that should
> > establish policies for GA.  The "bottom up" structure comes from the
> > fact that the NC is *elected* by the constituencies.  The fact that
> > there is a representational gap in the constituency structure is a
> > problem, and that problem is not solved by creating a additional
> > structure in the GA.
> >
> > > If you *really* thought that Danny would no longer be supported by the GA,
> > > you should have argumented your points asking for a *GA action*, not a *NC
> > > action*.
> >
> > Nope.  In my view it is precisely the NC that should bear
> > responsibility for this.
> >
> > > Try to start a straw poll, if you have enough supporters for your position I
> > > am sure that the pressure will be such that a vote would be organized. But
> > > if you get only half a dozen supporters, please put this issue at rest
> > > forever.
> >
> > The idea that the GA should vote on things is fundamentally flawed.
> > Despite the appearances, IN FACT the GA is an unaccountable fluid group
> > of email identities, not a body of people.  The NC, on the other hand,
> > is composed of real people that we know.
> >
> > Consequently, IN FACT votes in the NC are open and transparent in a way
> > that votes in the GA simply cannot match, and I would really much rather
> > have there be people doing votes, people we can accost at meetings and
> > yell at, instead of email addresses.
> >
> > > Incidentally, suppose that the NC will positively consider your request,
> > > and recall the Chair, what do you think will happen to our request of NC
> > > not interfering in GA Chair elections?
> >
> > I personally hope that they ignore it.  According to the bylaws, they
> > must ignore it, because it would be an abdication of their assigned
> > duties.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
> > 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