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

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

Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,

eric@hi-tek.com wrote:

> I am having a hard time with this one.

  Well I must admit, it is difficult to understand this
sort of mindset or perhaps mindlessness is a better term...  ???
Whichever is the proper term to describe, I think in some twisted
and bizarre way I can understand some of this.  That being that
as many of us early on recognized, some of which have now
fallen away, we recognized that the REAL goal of the
than ICANN Interim Board and staff was to throw away
the White Paper and MoU in effect, and proceed in a
way that gives only the appearance of bottoms-up,
but was really a Top-Down elitist process...

>
>
> What a sick heading for a not for profit.
>
> What a sick mindset for a leader.

  Yes, there are many leaders around the globe as recent history
clearly shows that are frankly quite sick IMHO, as well as
a growing number of others.

>
>
> 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@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 124k members/stakeholders 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