Re: [ga] GA Credibility.

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Roeland,
you obviously are 100% right. I note that you are the only one having a 
[alibi] motion you wrote subject to a [non discussed] vote. The problem 
here is that people have nothing to discuss but themselves. Chair has 
carefully made sure of that, and Patrick makes sure they are kept buzy.

Have you sorted out your sever so you might run MLs?

Jefsey


On 17:58 27/05/01, Roeland Meyer said:
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 11:03 PM
>
> >   I believe that complaint's as have been discussed on this
> > forum are that
> > one person cannot accurately provide or present an accurate report to
> > the NC.  I join im that concern given the Rewrite of the WG-Review
> > that was done recently...
>
>Hello all,
>
>I've been busy getting a fairly complex server online and have not had the
>time to read all of the past weeks messages. I also have a couple of new
>engagements starting up. These things will keep me occupied for a few days,
>at least <g>.
>
>This has given me a wonderful opportunity to step back to the 50,000 foot
>view of these lists. It occurs to me that we have been so aggressively
>bashing each other, in public, that a cursory review of these proceeding
>will show the casual observer that NONE of us should be trusted with even as
>much as a sharp tooth-pick. It might be used as a weapon. Jim Dixon's
>comments wrt "adult supervision", of a few years back, comes to mind.
>
>Two major credibility breachs come to mind wrt GA credentials; DNSO.ORG
>charter re-write, after Monterrey and before Paris, the WG-Review process
>from start to short finish, with subsequent rewrite and re-direction of the
>WG-Review consensus document.
>
>Regardless of where one falls, on these issues, one can't help but recognise
>the stunning lack of credibility of a body with such highly credentialed
>folks in attendance. It's an anomally. Having met many of you F2F, I might
>also point out that much of the on-list behavior is a caricature of the
>normal F2F presentation of many of you.
>
>In addition, many of have realized for quite sometime that, the DNSO/GA is a
>beard for the ICANN. It is intended to show the non-ICANN world that the
>ICANN is indeed open. What it also does is demonstrate, for the ICANN, that
>general transparency isn't ready for prime-time. It is the strongest
>argument against the @LArge that the ICANN has. A demonstration of chaos, if
>you will.
>
>Going into the Stockholm meeting, those attending might want to reflect on
>this.
>--
>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