Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Well Joop, David and Wiilliam;

You can tweak these numbers a bit but that is about where I stand.

I get listened to.  And you all know that I have no group but my ilk is that of
the lowest common denominator on the net  -  the lowly user only.

Throw us a bone?

I think not.  I think users will soon organize and throw you a bone.

The task force report on structure sucks.  David did a great job of recording
objections.

The structure requires users, users, users yet it only includes abusers, abusers
and more abusers.

Sincerely,
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Well said, Joop.  I agree completely with your comments here.
>
> Saturday, Saturday, February 16, 2002, 2:41:00 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 22:31 16/02/02 +1300, DPF wrote:
>
> >>To some degree I see it as whether it is better to have 100% of the
> >>votes of an SO which will probably be ignored 99% of the time or to
> >>have 13% of the vote of an SO which gets listened to say half the
> >>time.
> >>
> >>Note that regardless of which model is adopted the ALSO would still
> >>appoint their Board members directly.
> >>
> >>As I said at the beginning feedback is welcome on the options.
>
> > At the moment *all* options look bleak.
>
> > The only way Individual DN holders will get listened to is by being able to
> > give serious input in the DNSO process.
> > That is where problems come up, are debated and prepared for a policy
> > decision by the Board.
>
> > This is why the IPC constituency is so dead set against having an IC (or an
> > IDNHC)   in the DNSO.
> > Even *if* the Individuals finally would get their DNSO constituency, they
> > have to pay the constituency fee and will still have only 3 votes. The
> > balance will still be in favour of the IP and supply-side.
>
> > The At Large is a chimera. There will be regional councils that will
> > somehow , at some time in the future, cough up a director.
> > Directors will represent regional interests, whatever they are, not global
> > Individual DN holders' interests. At the least , they will be elected on
> > the basis of a regional division, not an interest division.
> > Once seated, a  director  is supposed to look after the interests of the
> > *Corporation* , which may restrict him looking after Individual Domain Name
> > Holders.
>
> >    This director, unless he also happens to work for a lobbying firm or a
> > big company, will be underfunded, possibly ignorant and likely  ignored,
> > and unable to influence his fellow Board members during the few yearly
> > meetings that the Board has.
>
> > By the time issues come to a vote at Board level, decisions will have been
> > made (by the staff).
> > AtLarge directors will simply and brutally be outvoted.
>
> > --Joop
>
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
> --
>
> "There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
> the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
> interprets the truth."
> -- Jean Giradoux
>
> --
> 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