Re: [ga] Re: Survey

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

Ross and all assembly members,

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> >   Again why should any additions rely on any one person to be
> > considered or added to the survey?  Such a requirement
> > creates a single point of failure, as well as violates the
> > Open and transparency requirement of the MoU and the White
> > Paper.
>
> For the simple reason that distributed drafting doesn't work (at some point,
> someone has to sit in front of the text input device and bang some keys -
> definite single point of failure there).

  Frankly Ross, I don't know here you came up with this particular
point of view.  Joint development of documents of any type have
using shared files or other input methods have been in use for around
6 or 7 years now.

>
>
> I fail to see where this violates the MoU/WP as well - if there is consensus
> in the <insertforumname> that the designate rep should take a position
> forward and if that rep is successful in convincing the other TF members
> that the position is a GoodThing(TM) then that position will be reflected in
> whatever output the TF produces.

  As Danny and others have pointed out time and time again Ross, TF's
are restricted to a very few number of stakeholders/users, some of which
do not necessarily represent any other group of stakeholders/users.
Hence the problem.

>
>
> In my mind, this is a much healthier process than the working groups because
> the various positions from each group already constitutes rough consensus
> leaving the TF almost solely to deal with how the various positions best fit
> together.

  "Rough Consensus"  has no real meaning.  Consensus that cannot be
measured is not consensus.

> This stands in stark contrast to the WG proceedings that I have
> seen to this point that see the WG dealing with procedural wrangling due to
> the sheer volume of participants. The TF model is certainly more removed
> from the front line, but then again, not every citizen gets a seat in the
> house of representatives anyways...

  TF's are not the house of representatives by any stretch of the imagination!
When I read that line I almost choked in laughter!  >;)  In any event,
as a stakeholder, large taxpayer, and interested party, I don't have
a problem EVER reaching my Senator or Congressional Representative.
If I do, at any point the methods of dealing with that are not difficult
to employ.  >;)  Recently the US Congress put out a report that
stated some 68m citizens conversed with their representatives
this year at least once.  40% of those did so on a regular basis.
Hence your argument here although meaning well, do not hold
up well...

>
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey
>
> > Ross and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Again why should any additions rely on any one person to be
> > considered or added to the survey?  Such a requirement
> > creates a single point of failure, as well as violates the
> > Open and transparency requirement of the MoU and the White
> > Paper.
> >
> > Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >
> > > It never came up during any discussion. As mentioned previously however,
> its
> > > not too late to get additions dropped in via Dan (as the GA constituency
> > > rep...)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -rwr
> > >
> > > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
> > > Realname Keyword: Heathrow Declaration
> > > Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>;
> <ga@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:58 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Survey
> > >
> > > > Ross,
> > > > Where is the question about the bankruptcy clause?
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Joanna
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ross
> Wm.
> > > > Rader
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:41 PM
> > > > To: DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Danny - feel free to stand by them, but you incorrect in this case.
> Not
> > > > having bothered to check the link that you presented as proof of some
> > > > conspiracy, I can't talk on an informed basis concerning which draft
> of
> > > the
> > > > survey that you are talking about - however, this document has
> undergone
> > > > many revisions - all based on input and criticism put forth by the
> > > drafting
> > > > team.
> > > >
> > > > At this point, I can't remember who was even responsible for putting
> > > forward
> > > > the first draft (I can look it up when I get back to the office if its
> > > > important) - but I do distinctly remember a number of conversations,
> > > dozens
> > > > of emails and a conference call or two between thedrafting team
> members
> > > > through the preparation of this draft.
> > > >
> > > > The important task now is for the TF to read through this draft, tear
> it
> > > > apart (or not) and get it into the hands of users that aren't
> > > > directly/officially represented in ICANN.
> > > >
> > > > -rwr
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> > > > To: <ga@dnso.org>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 PM
> > > > Subject: [ga] Re: Survey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dan Steinberg has asked that I retract the accusation that:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Why don't you come clean, and admit that this is solely Ross's
> > > > > work-product that you modified only in the most minor of ways"
> > > > >
> > > > > I stand by my comments, and have produced a side-by-side comparison
> > > > between
> > > > > the survey questions created by Ross and the survey questions
> produced
> > > by
> > > > the
> > > > > "small group of TF members" posted at
> > > http://www.icannworld.org/survey.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Let the GA decide if anything more than minor modifications are
> present.
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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 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
> >
> >

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-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