Re: [ga] GA representation on the Names Council

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:28 PM 17/11/1999 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>The constituencies are not arbitrary.  They were arrived at 
>through a long and painful process.
>
Many people who were part of that process and formulated the Paris Draft,
and later , in Singapore, supported  the CENTR proposal found themselves
arbitrarily excluded by the ICANN Board.  Painful, yes.  
Also do not forget the effect of the bylaws promising, nay, inviting those
not part of the originally ordained constituencies, to petition the Board
for recognition of further constituencies.

Are you now saying that that provision in the bylaws was just there for
decoration, to get the nod from NTIA?

>> The NC, further, shouldn't use the GA's
>> dysfunctionality as an excuse for ignoring the beam in its own eye.
>
>The NC is far from perfect,  but there is no honest comparison of levels 
>of dysfunctionality.  The NC actually is working; the GA is not.
>

There is no merit in "working" when this work is to the clear detriment of
those excluded from a place at the table.

>> 	I'm not sure, though, that any of that is the *reason* the GA list is
>> functioning so poorly.  A lot of folks within the GA, surely, distrust the
>> NC because of these concerns; but the folks who are most responsible for
>> disrupting the GA list, I think, are primarily driven by ego and
>> testosterone and I don't know what else.  
>
>The ego/testosterone/idealogue/power-obsessed behavior in the GA has
>another effect -- it drives out many people who would otherwise be 
>positive contributors.
>
While I agree with that observation, it should not be used to permanently
castrate the GA.
A Chair, enforced list rules  and decent procedure can tame the beast.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/