Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

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

Eric and all assembly members,

eric@hi-tek.com wrote:

>    Very interesting Jefsey,
>
> This is such a dramatic picture of the "evolution of the GA"  that it
> should be enshrined.
>
> Listen up folks;
>
> The GA is not going anywhere soon, the NC is not evaporating as
> perhaps
> it should.  There are no easy answers alla TR and AS.

  TR and AS are emphatically incorrect as has been pointed out by
Karl A., Danny y., as well as I presented from our members.  These
types of structures have a history of working where TR's and AS's
have no long term history of being successful.  KISS - Keep it simple
stupid is an age old axiom that has proven over time to be a successful
approach.

  What is true that Thomas pointed out is that the present structure
for the DNSO is a failure.  Of course a number of us that have
been active participants for some time recognized early on but were
ignored, or otherwise hassled on-list to the point of it becoming
ludicrous.  That much as you have told me before yourself Eric
is well documented.

>
>
> We have work to do and I ask TR and AS to set up working groups and
> utilize our sublists and get some work done around here.

  The sublists have been ignored, and were a poor idea from the
Get go.  Yes WG's are necessary and very useful as long as they
as task oriented, open to any interested party, and transparent.

>
>
> Looky here, I am a Philosopher, degree from NAU 1980, so I have a
> right
> to pontithicate and strategize the future.  The rest of you who have
> engineering degrees and the like and need to get things done. NOW get
> things done!

  Wrong!  Many of us, such as myself have multiple educational
and experience backgrounds.  Hence such a pontificating as you
state above is an insult to our intelligence, not to mention a
less than productive method of accomplishing inclusion.

>
>
> Everyone has a job to do and a specific ability.

  Wrong to a degree again!  Not everyone has JUST a specific ability.
That kind of thinking is single minded and as such not valid unless
you know specifically what every participant in the GA's background
in education and experience is.  I doubt that you do...  If you do,
please
outline that for us all...

>  Cam Ong, right now TR
> get organized and make this a viable unit.  There is no other, we are
> the ones so get it together and lets' start some work.

  Work is being done despite ICANN and the DNSO as I type this.
Hence getting organized is far behind the time curve...

>
>
> Sincerely, with hope,
> e
>
>
>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> >  Derar Philip,
> > Bravo for opening the floor on this matter with good questions.
> > However some remarks:
> > On 15:19 11/04/02, Philip Sheppard said:
> >
> >> Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved
> >> challenges for individual domain name holders.
> >
> >
> > There was no problem per se. There was a centralized vision ported
> by
> > Joop Teernstra also a good promoter of the cause. The need is real.
> > The vision IMO is wrong, and at least shown itself sterile. Both at
> > the IDNO and at the icannatlarge.com. But you cannot correct the
> > errors if you don't try.
> >
> >
> >> So, use the at-large structure to provide this organisation and to
> >> elect its NC reps.
> >
> >
> > This is the Denis Jennings compromise which founded the DNSO as a
> > failure (as Joe SImis testified) unbalanced witgh the ASO and PSO.
> The
> > @large are the most active among the real owners of the Internet.
> The
> > ICANN is a system to organize the coopetition to service that
> owners.
> > The DNSO is an interface off all the stakeholders (servcices and
> > owners) on the specific issue of the DNs. A very specific issue in
> the
> > naming space area which is a specific issue amng the concerns of the
>
> > @large.
> >
> > I am afraid this is also a loop into something which does not exist.
>
> > May I recall you that the ALSC has identified that their problem was
>
> > to gather enough @large people. They "discovered" that Individual
> > Domain Names holders could be their pool of voters, with the huge
> > success we know. Now you have a problem in finding Indvidual Domain
> > Names Holders. You "discover" that the @lagre could be a pool of
> IDNH
> > voters... I am afraid that at the end of the day it will resolve to
> > Joop, Esther and Mike.
> >
> >
> >> Then, get all constituencies via their NC reps to vote for the DNSO
>
> >> chair, who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float this idea
> >> safe in the knowledge it won't be me.) Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > This idea is worth consideration but it can work only if (as you
> point
> > it) any consituency may be created and aggregated. The most urgent
> > ones being the Registrant Constituency and the Users Constituency
> and
> > a reform of the BC to represent the interests of those doing a
> > business for which the DN is important. Also that all the @large
> > concerns out of DN issues are addressed eleswhere. End the last but
> > notthe least that Constituencies may participate in different SOs,
> so
> > we can keep the ccTLDs.
> >
> > This way the DNSO will gather:
> > - those offering DNs on general (gTLD), national (ccTLD),
> specialized
> > (sTLD) basis.
> > - those selling them (Registrars and Reselles./ISPs)
> > - those registering them (Registrants: individual, corporate,
> > bulk/consultants)
> > - those protecting them (IPC)
> > - those using them (Users and Consummes)
> >
> > jfc
> >
>
>

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