Re: [ga] Organizing structure work. - Requires openness and transparency..

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

Very curious!

How can you have openness and transparency when you are limited to a certain
number of posts per day.

On the one hand how can one disclose everything, but you already had 5
posts?  "Oops! I could not post the part about 6 BoD seats cuz I already
posted 5"

On the other hand how can you ask the questions?  "Golly gee I forgot to ask
how many seats your proposal had in it!  But Now I can't because AS will
suspend me if I do ask another smart question."

A WG with a strict limitation on postings is a TF with a broad base.  But
don't go and worry we can route around this inaness.

Sincerely,
Eric


Jeff Williams wrote:

> Thomas and all stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > On 2002-03-12 15:29:48 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > >Not that I disagree with your approach, and it's great to see a
> > >positive reaction to pull everybdoy together, but is the purpose
> > >of the WG to produce one definitive DNSO restructuring proposal on
> > >the basis of a consensus of participants in the proposed WG? Or do
> > >you think a number of mutually exclusive proposals may be put
> > >forward, each of which could go forward separately?
> >
> > What will have to be done first is this:
> >
> >  - understand what kinds of proposals are out there
>
>   WHAT proposals are out there yes.  What KIND of proposals
> I am sure is not all that important.
>
> >
> >  - understand what these proposals mean
> >  - document that understanding
>
>   Most proposals that are done well are self evident as to their meaning.
>
> >
> >
> > At least for the first steps, it's not really important whether we
> > strive for the Great Unified Reform Plan (I don't believe we'll be
> > the ones to find that one, but we may wish to keep the goal within
> > sight), or whether we just try to end up with a set of distinct and
> > well-understood proposals.  In fact, the latter is a necessary step
> > on the way to a GURP, and it's a step to which the GA can reasonably
> > try to contribute by bundling public input into the DNSO's "GURP
> > process". ;-)
>
>  Public input must be effected by good outreach.  Outreach
> from ICANN and the DNSO in particular has been discouraged
> on several levels as well as in several ways.  Therefore it is reasonable
>
> to conclude that real openness and transparency are required for
> these barriers to be removed or destroyed.  With the GA this would
> mean that several of the GA list rules be removed or destroyed.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> > --
> > 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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