RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

["Alf Hansen" <Alf.Hansen@uninett.no>]

Roberto,

Well said. I really appreciate what you and others are doing (as
individuals) in order to try to create some structure into the DNSO.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Roberto
> Gaetano
> Sent: 2. april 2000 02:48
> To: Alf.Hansen@uninett.no
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
>
.....
>
> It sure is a can-of-worms, but we should address the problem, anyhow.
>
> I do not mean to try to convince you, but I will just bring my own case.
>
> I am an ICANN At-Large member, like you, and particularly interested in
> DN issues (I am also interested in protocols, but that's another issue).
>
>
> I do not belong to any constituency, for the simple reason that my
> (daylight) job is with a company that does not have, at this point in
> time, a direct interest in my participation in this process.
> Therefore, I am participating as an individual (i.e. on my own time and
> expenses) in said (I was about to mispell "said" in "sad") process.
>
> Is there a Constituency for Internet Users that want to have a say in
> the process? No, up to now. The only possibility is the GA.
> Why not the At-Large? Because it is simply unknown, for the time being,
> what the @Large will be.
> And even if, why should my specific interest as a DNS user be diluted in
>  a more general group like the @Large? Why should I have a forum to
> discuss my opinions about protocols in the IETF, but not have a forum to
>  discuss my opinions about the DNS? Would you abolish the IETF and
> suggest that everybody be just "At Large ICANN Member"? Of course not
> (and I will concede that the example is not completely fit, but you
> should concede that there are some similarities).
>
> As a bottom line, I think that the individual that does not have a
> "professional" involvment, in the sense that he/she does not have a firm
>  that sponsors his/her trips and activities in the Internet, still has
> something to contribute to this process, and that it will be a gross
> mistake not to listen to him/her and to take his/her POV into account if
>  we want to build a really global model.
>
> The GA, as it looks now, is the only forum in which the lay[wo]men can
> get together and talk about their hobby, and their needs as users.
>

I see your point. But. The "power" of IETF is that they have a scaleable
process on how to start and finish focused WGs, in several Areas. Anyone can
participate, and if someone wants to destroy the process, he can try to do
that in one or two WGs, but it is "impossible" to jam the whole structure.

I am afraid that if we allow anyone with a DNS hobby in one way or another,
or, allow any individual (perhaps a 0.0x % of them wants to destroy the
process) to use the DNSO GA for their individual purpose, there will be
chaos. Unless the DNSO has a focused, self-regulatory structure like the
IETF.

Basicly, I think you are right, there are individuals who are needed in the
DNSO GA. The procedure for "consensus building" of the DNSO has to be
strengthened, and I think the enforced rules for this list is a step in the
right direction.

If formal voting is a part of the "consensus building" process of the DNSO
GA, it is my opinion that for the time being, that only member organizations
should be allowed to vote, according to the membership database.

> Incidentally, in my programme before elections, this is what I put in
> light, and this is what I still maintain is my first priority.
>
>
> Regards
> Roberto

Best regards,
Alf H
.NO

--
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