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

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Only membership orgs, eh? What about corporations, thery are legally orgs,
yet have no rolls.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Alf
> Hansen
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 12:59 PM
> To: roberto.gaetano@voila.fr; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
>
>
> 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
>

--
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