[ga-rules] "Open covenants openly arrived at?"

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

In working groups (WG) or whatever may derive from
the rather loosely linked efforts of Danny and Patrick
(Chair and Alternate Chair), has any thought been given
to the degree of openness of the process of whoever may
be part of some particular Special Purpose endeavor?
("Special Purpose," by the way, I find to be much more
descriptive and less likely to draw flames than "Special
Interest.")  Perhaps surprisingly, I recommend that these
groups work quietly among themselves, their "faltering
steps" not being open to public debate.  The U. S.
Constitution was written that way, and for very good
reason: it was a highly politically charged endeavor,
likely never to advance if every American soul could
jump into the middle of it. What the GA is seeking here
is much the same, and if you open this process to public
scrutiny, the flame wars start.  This latter is no doubt a
leading reason why the doors are not being pressed in
with volunteers -- who wants to volunteer to be a
punching bag? Public access to any of these ongoing
efforts would do nothing but multiply the number of chat
rooms such as ga that we presently have. By working
outside of public view, perhaps actual documents,
preferably with "minority reports" if indeed there is an
inclination within the group so to do, might ultimately be
presented to all of the GA for its comment.

Bill Lovell

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html