[ga] Roberto may help us using the GA for good

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Bruce and Pawlo,
FYI  I started reading Jeff Williams' posts and had long fruitful exchanges
with him. He has metaphors and humor of his own. Usually third degree. I
had a lot of fun decrypting his cryptic posts... and took advantage of some.

On 20:23 30/01/01, Mikael Pawlo said:
>When you consider my Jeff Williams reference an ad hominem-argument you
>probably don't see how low the confidence in the GA is. Also, it seems you
>know little of the Jeff Williams FAQ. Check for example:
>http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html
>
>This is way beyond ad hominem. This is just a pretty lame try to disrupt
>the process as such. Unfortunately, the current chair has not been able to
>fight the constant disruptions from Jeffrey A. Williams and his likes.

What you name "his likes" are perturbators. Some are very professional
and you do not notice them before they made a lot of harm. They are a
real danger to net-democracy in a virtual environment where you do not
meet face to face, discussions are asynchronous and people usually
think that on a same forum participants share the same basic concerns.

>I can't say I would have done a better job, since the situation is beyond
>anything I have seen in other events. I don't know who's behind all those
>disrupting processes, it might be an organized effort, it might not be.

Organizing anything in this environment is very costly and consuming.
As everywhere in life there are three kind of people/forces:

- the people who have no idea and who stick to the rules only because
   they are here
- the people who have ideas for their own and enjoy playing with the
   forum, either to be pleased others agree with them (the pompous
   bores) or to disrupt the process (perturbators)
- the people who have ideas for the others. Some will try to use them
   to their benefit and to lead the group (often in manipulating), other will
   serve as gurus or advisors, other will try to keep the system moving.

On the Internet the difficulty of making the system moving is that
e-relations are very weak and an iCANN bylaws change by 10 directors
in a remote room may kill years of e-efforts (look at the DNSO Review
report after so much works/debates at the WG-Review).

So, the only reliable solution to make things moving is to build "aside".
The GA is offering us that possibility. This is an iCANN/DNSO space
which is free of rules. Let set-up our own de facto rules and let work.

How? Let assume that the BoD asks the DNSO a report. If the GA
organizes itself and produces a parallel better report than the NC and
if this becomes something usual the GA organization will prevail.

Is that feasible? I think so. But is up to us. As Karl Auerbach advised
it and we started doing it at the WG-Review: we just have to self-set
up and organize Centers of Interest and have specialized discussions,
accumulating experience, links, competences.

For that we need only one thing: that a certain number of GA
Members together may obtain a DNSO/GA sub-ML to be created
for them to discuss a topic. This is something for Roberto and
Elisabeth to organize. If they do not do it, we will do it by ourselves,
but outside of the DNSO, but inside would be more positive.

BTW I do think Roberto did a good job (I though as you do) but
he was trapped into the bylaws: we have learned with him and
Harald. Next Chair should just do nothing, leaving Harald
moderating (what he does well), protecting us from NC interest.

Jefsey




--
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