Re: [ga] (no subject)

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

To all.
I suppose we could come back to a more sensible and therefore more
acceptable approach of the issues at stake. If I may I would like to
review some as they appear somewhat related.

1. Chairmanship
IMHO the Chairs should not have an other agenda than to be the best
servant of the ML. This was what Roberto and Harald roughly did.

- this should not prevent them to participate to some threads, but it
   would mostly be in helping new areas to be investigated or in
   leading to consensus. So not to initiate new threats.
- all our candidates - but the one who resigned - had an private
   agenda.  We have to live with it. I note that the most active was
   Eric and  the least was Patrick.

2. List Monitoring
I made clear that complaints should be carried in the open through
an automated system. Every position should be questionable -
including Chair and List Monitor. But we have not that system yet.

In the meanwhile I think it would be advisable that the Chair does
not appoint the altChair as a List Monitor, in the best interest of both
functions. Power separation is always the best. The best proof is
that Patrick had immediately to publish a rule exception.

3. Call to the Order
I wish to recall the Chairs that a good ML is first a well chaired
one. For several days I have a motion pending, seconded, fully
documented to have most of the discussions overloading this
ML to be ported elsewhere with a clear agenda. This motion has
not even been acknowledge by the Chair, and obviously not acted
upon. Either by vote or by the creation of an ML.

A second Motion by DPF with the same aim concerning a
competing topic and other topics widely discussed has been
seconded and documented. Not acknowledged.

Instead of sending posts over posts asking to reduce the post
number, abiding by the rules and making the posts to move
another place seems a more reasonable way to attain a post
reduction.

4. New Rules
Our new Chairman explained he has been elected on a agenda
which includes new rules to be set-up for this ML and the GA.
He has explained that he has set-up a sub-list for that.

I therefore call for:
- that list to be Chaired by the alt-Chair as it is an important
   issue where the Chair cannot commit himself
- that list to be reminded to everyone until it gets its momentum
- its works to be regularly (every week?) reported by a post of
   its Chair to the GA.

5. Traffic
When you have to rules natural life there is a problem. Auto-
regulation has to be favored. I feel that the rule of 5 post is
absurd. It can only serve in the case of someone keeping
sending automated mails to the list.

We have to find and adopt auto-regulation solutions, the most
documented and accepted one being SIG MLs. Again: per topic
ad Member initiative, one sub-ML, one link on the DNSO/GA
page, position links on the sub-ML web site.

6. Conflicts of Interest
Eric has a major point in saying that Patrick is in competition with
iCANN. Actually iCANN has put itself in competition with quite all
of us except those it pays or paid by its partners or future partners.

This conflict does exist now with quite all the DNSO Members. The
pretension of regulating the content through the TLD has now lead
to the last conflict of interest (with NonCom at least) through the
intended take over of ".org". Positions taken here concerning plan
B shown that a lot of good reasons were at stake. Not to quote the
IDNH/O issue.

This question is fundamental to the DNSO/GA and to the future
of the iCANN. However it should be very seriously investigated
in a complete manner and not through Patrick's case:

a) Patrick is on a non-profit Board (TLDA)
b) among its targets TLDA aims at developing the iCANN in a
     way iCANN should accept as conform to its bylaws
c) several of the Members of this List are members of the TLDA
d) Eric's assumption that non-legacy TLDs are out for money
     is not necessarily true (I head non-profits associations for
     TLDs totally compliant with the iCANN vision of new TLDs).
     Also, the ccTLDs best practice and the gTLD contracts make
     an obligation to legacy TLDs to look for money. There is not
     anything equivalent at TLDA.


I wish some reason prevails on this list. We all have many
other things to do, starting with a better Internet. This list has
no other interest that helping us to go that way.

I thank all those sharing the same target to help us all to
make it.

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