I think you're wrong - Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

The GA active participants here cannot establish any valid GA positions individually.  It
takes a record of coordinated effort to show valid positions.  Without a record showing
coordinated effort and the valid consensus, GA positions are without merit and easily
challenged.

It is far harder to challenge an organized structure consisting of 9 GA Directors that
have determined the GA's consensus and positions through its review of verifiable
information and comments submitted to the GA forum.  It would be easier for GA Directors
to rationalize GA information.

The purpose of the GA is to establish GA positions based upon valid consensus, and to
present its findings to the NC for review.  What I have proposed in suggesting 9 GA
Directors does not conflict with the purpose of the GA nor does it conflict with the DNSO
Charter (Where does it conflict with the DNSO Charter?).

Furthermore, what I proposed will stabilize and enhance the GA's performance and possibly
save the GA from the NC's chopping block.

Other constituencies within the DNSO are progressing in developing agendas and developing
their positions concerning their agendas.  The way the other constituencies within the
DNSO are performing works for them.  The GA has not reached valid consensus regarding any
subject matter and so I am suggesting that we do something about it.

What is really scary here are that the players from the WG-Review are now involved in the
GA demanding that their ideas will work when in fact they failed in the WG-Review
process.  The NC killed the WG-Review process because it was non-effective at producing
valid consensus on any tangible subject matter.  This is because the WG-Review process was
not properly structured, nor able to properly coordinate with its members, this is why the
WG-Review process was non-effective at producing valid consensus on any tangible subject
matter.

I hope the players from the WG-Review can see that their structure and process did not
work.  I hope people here can see that a new process should be tested.

I am not challenging the GA Chair's performance.  What I have proposed does not displace
the current GA process.  However, what I proposed with the 9 GA Directors may show that
most GA active participants here will not stand behind GA positions, and this should
change.  The GA needs at least 9 individuals to stand behind GA positions.  Thus far, I
count 3 individuals who will stand behind GA positions.  Who else should be added to the
MEMBERS SUPPORTING GA POSITIONS list?

MEMBERS SUPPORTING GA POSITIONS
1.  Danny Younger    GA Chair
2.  Patrick Corliss    GA Co-Chair
3.  Derek Conant

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Derek,
>
> There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
> does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
> results.
>
> That removes the entire purpose of the GA.
>
> The suggestion is out of bounds, since it would require a change of
> the DNSO charter anyway.
>
> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 5:36:20 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > Such a thing can exist if we put it into motion.  How can we get to work without a
> > stable representative body.  Anything less than a showing of coordination that
> > produces valid results is only chat session in the end is my point.
>
> > If the GA supports your being a GA Director would you accept the position for 2
> > months?  Why not take an active role in determining the GA's direction and positions
> > regarding subject matter?  This would be considered constructive for the GA.
>
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> >> Hello Derek,
> >>
> >> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 3:27:19 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
> >>
> >> > This looks like chat to me.  Now that we are over this, let's move forward with
> >> > something more tangible here for the GA.
> >>
> >> > Are you willing to be a GA Director?  If so great!  If not, why not?
> >>
> >> Because such a thing does not exist.
> >>
> >> Let's dismiss all these wild ideas and get down to work.
> >>
> >> Danny, are you going to lead us or what?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> William X Walsh
> >> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> >> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> >> Userfriendly.com Domains
> >> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
> --
> 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