Re: How to get rid of volunteers (Re: [ga] How to disenfranchise 489 members of the DNSO)

[eric@hi-tek.com]

I am having a hard time with this one.

What a sick heading for a not for profit.

What a sick mindset for a leader.

This is just plain wrong.

Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Possibly the GA representatives to Task Forces should just go on
> strike, or something like that.  That would certainly be healthy
> for real life... Kristy, what do you think?
>
> I personally agree that the GA must be changed in order to fulfill
> its function as a forum for meaningful exchange between
> constituencies.  I even believe that GA votes on substantial
> resolutions do not make it easier for the GA to fulfill this
> function, and that open polls on such issues are more appropriate
> (different thread ["tools"], please comment on this topic there).
>
> However, I strongly believe that restricting GA membership to
> constituencies' members would be a mistake.
>
> The DNSO would deprive itself of valuable public input, and it would
> also deprive itself of quite some amount of volunteers' dedication
> and effort, and of external insight and comments.  The DNSO would
> remove the (possibly lose) connection to "veterans" who may no
> longer be active within constituencies, but still hang around [even
> when they are quiet most of the time; this may be a good opportunity
> for some of you folks to speak up].  The DNSO would lose the ability
> to use the GA as a forum for cross-SO exchange - not even the ccTLDs
> would be admitted!  The DNSO would lose the (necessary!) flexibility
> which the GA adds to a task-force based policy-making process; that
> loss cannot be fixed by a public comment period, or by surveys.
>
> I'm sure I forgot quite a few points why this recommendation is the
> wrong approach.
>
> "For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and
> wrong."
>
> In the case of the GA, the Names Council has picked a solution of
> that kind.
>
> To Philip: When I asked for a change to and further discussion of
> this recommendation, I meant that. I did not mean a mere footnote
> stating what the GA chair thinks.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
> On 2002-05-30 14:40:02 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >From: DannyYounger@cs.com
> >Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:40:02 EDT
> >Subject: [ga] How to disenfranchise 489 members of the DNSO
> >To: ga@dnso.org
> >
> >Names Council Recommendation 23 - General Assembly . The gTLD policy
> >development body should have a general assembly whose prime role is to
> >provide a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently,
> >membership should be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented
> >in the policy development body.
> >
> >This recommendation has been approved by every constituency in the DNSO.
> >
> >There are no more than 100 members of the GA voting roster that have
> >identified themselves as "agreed stakeholders".  The rest of us that don't
> >belong to established constituencies (489) have been told to take a hike by
> >the elitists on the Council.
> >
> >This type of fuck-you attitude is precisely what is wrong with both the DNSO
> >and ICANN.
> >--
> >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-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