Re: [ga] Last comment, for a while

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

These nit picky arguments over bi- whatever are divisive and non helpful.  I
think the world of Jefsey and Roberto but this little line of argument is much
more a "I have better suggestion ego thing than fair application of necessity.
These two arguments remind me of  - " In a perfect world we would blah, blah,
blah at a beauty pageant".  Knock it off and stand for something that can mean
something not something warm and fuzzy and yet logical that is totally
impractical.  I know it is hard but try to think with the rest of us here, you
both sound like nutty eccentric professors lost in ivory towers and Marylin is
reeling you in like young trout.

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 00:17 25/10/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
> >If we had any possible claim to representativeness, we should be at least
> >on the thousands.
>
> Dear Roberto,
> your point is well made. I too opposed the very concept of bicameral for
> the same feelings. In such cases when I have no pre-thought position I try
> to take some time from different other perspectives.
>
> The idea of Roeland and Danny is to balance the NC power. Kent objects
> saying that the NC is representative as being elected while the GA is only
> self-selected. You oppose the nature of the two structures and question the
> representativeness of the GA.
>
> Let face it. The @large are the people considering themselves as ICANN
> stakeholders. As such they are the governance at its individual level. They
> have two ways of being present: individually as IDNHC, GA Member, ALSO,
> etc... and through the consistuencies. These are the same people. I am a
> Member of the BC, I should be a Member of the NCDNHC.. Bicameral - as you
> describe it perfectly - is two ways of electing people. What is the
> interest? to make my directly elected reps to control my indirectly elected
> reps so they do their job of representing me. NC is not really paying big
> attention to our positions, @large should remind them.
>
> Now you say the GA is not representative. A few comments:
> - the GA is then no more: it is addition of the Constituencies plus who
> wants. So GA is more representative than the constituencies and therefore
> than the NC.
>
> - the GA is open to everyone. When they voted the death of the French King
> by one vote, there was some emergency as five representatives supporting
> the King did not make it to Pairs yet, and only 1.5% of the French people
> had participated into the last election. Yet no one challenge the vote.
>
> - again "I do not ask my telephone to be democratic, I ask it to work". The
> DNSO is no Parliament. It is a politico/technical advisory body. What we
> need to see represented are the problems and concerns. I pay a lot
> attention to Eric for that reason because he represents the problems of
> millions while I represent only the concerns of those who are aware.
>
> So at the end of the day, "bicameral" is not the proper word, I agree, but
> it is a step in the proper direction I suppose.
> 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

--
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