Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

[Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> I may agree on the fact that it will have no influence - I am not
> expecting them to resign following this exchange of messages -

Shouldn't we distinguish between "no influence" and "not the only influence?"

I have heard people complain that their vote did not count simply because the
election was decided by more than one vote or because their candidate did not
win.  The only way to guarantee that your vote won't count is not to vote.

The ICANN Board has consistently sought input from the community and
determined consensus on all issues before it in light of community response.
Our comments are offered and will be received in that context.

> Paul Svensson wrote:
> >> ...As I see it,
> >> there are only two reasons for anyone to be silent in the debate:
> >>
> >>      1) The outcome is not important enough for them to bother with it,
> >>      2) They accept the consensus of those participating in the debate.

That is a truncated list.  You might consider adding:

            3)  Their opinions vary from their employer.
            4)  Their opinions vary from their "party."
            5)   Their opinions vary from their customers.
            6)   Their opinions are not wanted/will not be considered.
            7)   They fear reprisal.
And, Kent's suggestion that
            8)    the

> >    GA is irrelevant.

Which, btw, is an interesting suggestion from a participant.

> >To put it in other words, the major issue before the GA is not the
> >credibility (legitimacy) of the Board.  The issue is the credibility
> >(legitimacy) of the GA.

First, these issues are independent and not mutually exclusive.
Second, the discussion in which the comments in question are offered relates
to the legitimacy of the Board (as regards the manner of filling four of its
seats).  The best way to guarantee the irrelevance of the GA in that
discussion is for the GA not to participate.   Some might call that course a
self fulfilling prophesy.

> >There is a very good reason that the GA has so little influence/power
> in
> >the bylaws.  That reason is that *many* people feared that the GA would
>
> >simply be a magnet for lunatics, idealogues, etc,

The speaker, by making this comment, is suggesting, by implication, that such
comment is relevant.  But, which of  the "voters" in the current poll were his
intended targets?  If none, why make such a comment when the
insinuation/likely inference matches (or, exceeds) other recent examples in
personal offense, IMHO.

Our expressions of opinion were open (each poster identified).  They are
available to be viewed individually or as a group by the board.  Under our
list's rules of discourse, no public characterization of the participants is
appropriate.  How does the reference to "lunatics" comport with the spirit, if
not the letter of that principle?

--
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