Rebutt to Robertos eval here to:Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

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

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Ellen,
>
> I have found your posting very valuable, but based on an assumption that
>  is different from the one I make. Let me detail the difference in our
> two approaches, before briefly going over some key points of your post.

  What two approaches are you referring to.  There is only one "Rules"
proposal on the table Roberto!  Wake up!

>
>
> You seem to consider "GA-list"="GA-Membership", and therefore as a
> consequence "vote on the GA-list"="membership vote".

  And the DNSO GA list admin announced this as the case when the
new DNSO GA list was formed.  So Ellen's assertion is based in fact.
Are you trying to rewrite history here Roberto?

>
>
> I consider, OTOH, the GA-list a tool for communication, and the GA-
> Membership something that has still to be defined.

  ANd you may consider the DNSO GAL list whatever you like.  But this
does not determine what it actually is, does it?  No, it doesn't.  Hence
given the known history here, I would submit that your view is not based
in fact, but rather a stated desire.

>
>
> IMHO, we can only speak of Membership when a "contract" exist between
> the individual (member) and the body, by which there is at least:
> - clear identification of the individual beyond reasonable doubt;
> - a well-defined system of benefit-duties that distinguishes the member
> from the non-member.

  Identification was assumed when the DNSO GA list was formed from the
old discuss DNSO list.  Hence the membership at that time was defined.
Also the DNSO List admin announced that new members may join by
subscribing to the dnso ga list.  The "Auth" of that subscription identifies

them by their E-Mail address currently.

  Now if you wish to further define or determine identity, that is fine.
But
whom is currently on the DNSO GA list are the current members of the
DNSO "General Assembly".

>
> None of the above conditions currently exist on the GA-list: therefore
> it cannot be considered a proper membership body.
>
> Now to your post.
>
> (from Harald:)
> >>
> >>It is now time for an opinion poll on the proposed ruleset. By the end
>  of
> >>the week, we hope that we can have a decision.
> >
>
> (from you:)
> >
> >First, the call for a vote is contained in a message that does not even
>
> >bear proper description in the subject header
> >
> >Second, we do not know what percentage of member votes should be
> considered
> >a "consensus" that results in adoption of these rules. Should the
> >prevailing recommendation be imposed on the entire membership if only a
>
> >small percentage of GA members vote?
>
> Harald called this an "opinion poll" (BTW, I concur with this definition
> , as the conditions for running a proper vote do not exist for the time
> being), you consider it a "vote", hence the difference of opinions.

  Agreed here Roberto.  And also hence, you current illegitimate position
as "Chair" and the Oct. 8th fraudulent election held by the DNSO is
there fore also severely circumspect accordingly.

>
>
> >
> >Third, the Rights to Post are subjective as to content, cumbersome and
> >vague;  they place sole discretion in the hands of a Sergeants at Arms,
>  who
> >may a) unilaterally impose posting limits; b) determine what
> constitutes
> >decorum and relevant business of the GA, and c) moderate content.
> These
> >rights do not describe an "open forum".
>
> Correct. The "open forum" is the "ga-unfiltered@dnso.org" that everybody
>  can choose to join. Those who prefer a monitored environment, OTOH, may
>  choose to subscribe to the "ga@dnso.org".
> Whoever finds that the "filters" are too restrictive, may always go to
> the other list. Freedom of choice is, IMHO, better than imposing on
> everybody a one-size-fits-all model of unfiltered mailing list.

  But which is the "Official" mailing and discussion list?  This approach is

by design divisive and inconsiderate of the membership as a whole.

>
>
> <technical matters snipped - same consideration about "membership"=
> "participation to the GA applies">
>
> >
> >Finally, and most disturbing, I feel the Rights to Post represent the
> >camel's nose under the mailing rules tent, with the following
> declaration:
> >
> >       It [the mailing list] is not itself a decision-making body.
> >
>
> The GA, IMHO, should become a decision-making body (which it is not,
> under the current ICANN Bylaws, as everybody had a chance to see).

  You are completely wrong here.  The White paper as well as the MoU
outline this very clearly, as has been pointed out several time in the past.

You need to review those documents more closely Roberto.  The ICANN
Bylaws also state that the DNSO is the decision making body for issues
related to Domain Name policy considerations.

>
>
> This said, I am claiming that the GA-mailing list (or any loosely-
> managed mailing list) can not be a proper decision-making body, because
> of the inherent lack of control of the identity and qualification of the
>  voters, lack of control on multiple ballots, and so on.

  In part this may indeed be true.  But not completely.  Improving on
the Identity of members of the DNSO GA mailing list may be prudent
and justifiable.  I believe that proposals were submitted on how that could
be accomplished.  The NC rejected them.  Hence we are where we are,
and we all have to live with it for the time being.  As I and others have
clearly stated, Roeland Mayers proposal for irrefutable identity on this
mailing list is doable, but the NC again determined NOT to implement
that or similar proposals, Roberto.

>
>
> The longer we will postpone the definition of a proper mechanism for
> membership, the further away we will place the objective of making of
> the GA a decision-making body.

  This is not necessarily true.  If the DNSO NC and the DNSO list admin
would have abided by the rules made for the Election process in the first
place these problems would be minor at worst.  That was not done, hence
bringing rise to controversy that we are now faced with.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members 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:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208