Re: [ga] Austerity measures

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Philip,
I am sorry but you are right on target:

- I will not accept Roealnd's evaluation for now and will address
   this seriously.

- the whole list is censored from the day you followed my
   suggestion to have Mr. Young as a Chair. I apologized for that
   mistake.

I am against any form of censorhip so I am on the ga-full. I
however fully accept the filtered ga as an help to keep the
ga-full intersting. But I want the most interesting information
(why people are extfiltered: they often represent market
or innovative trends not yet accepted or still ill worded).
Since this is a part of my financial reason to participate,
should the ga-full be removed I would make everything to
obtain that information through the "censored" list to the
detriment of its peace. We are here to work, to get feeds
back, to achieve personnal agenda... not to drink Vint's
cup of tea.

On 09:22 15/05/01, Philip Sheppard said:
>Can anyway provide an example of censorship exercised on
>the ga moderated list in the last 12 months?
>Philip.

You are true. There never have been censorship on the ga
moderated list as long as Mr. Roberto Gaetano was the Chair.
Except may be - but it was a mutually accepted act - against
Dr. Baptista.

You may now want to consider that since Mr. Danny Young
has been approved as a Chair by the NC, upon GA vote:

- not a single motion has even been acknowledged while
   many have been presented

- not a single vote has been taken or is under preparation

- all the important subjects have been definitely censored in
   being exfiltered to artificial MLs under tight control (list
   monitoring, common regulation, etc..) without ANY
   approbation nor even consultation of the GA

- that the Chair has issued several letters - as put by
   Roberto - "in emergency" on behalf of the whole GA
   but has not - as commented by Roberto - yet polled the
   approbation of he GA

- Mr. Jeff Williams and Mr. Eric Dierker have been
   excluded on disputable grounds and the GA has been
   denied the possibility of an appeal IRT Mr. Dierker
   explicitly filtered out because of his positions against
   the Chair as a "dotcommer".

- Some Chair positions have been published as based
   upon personal censoring and appreciations of external
   MLs (WG-R, IDNO, icann-europe).

I am really embarrassed to acknowledge this. It means
that the GA was not mature enough to carry this election
after the departure of the consensual candidate.

But this is also a positive thing.

- we gained experience and may find a solution
   (should the subject not censored by Chairs)

- I used to campaigned against constituencies and the
   existing NC.  I am still opposed to the current
   constituency system (even more if we consider the
   ga-full handling) but I learned the priority of the
   required "wise  people" council. The NC could be
   it, should the Individual Users, the SMEs, the
   individual domain name holders, the RSCs and non
   legacy TLDs be represented.

I thank you for your concern and your time. Your
response will show who was right, Roeland or me.
I do hope I am. Otherwise I will agree 100% with
Roeland.

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