Cade's Work item suggestions was: Re: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey, Marilyn and all assembly members,

  I think Marilyn has come up with some good suggestions for the DNSO
GA to get some work items at least underway as you do Jefsey.
(More comments below Marilyns below)

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> I support all your propositions. When do we start trying to find the
> necessary funding to handle your proposed surveys? Could some sponsor be
> interested in the results (this would help making the GA an analysis tool:
> may be NSI could be interested in lenging us a analyst part-time?). I would
> suggest a change in the purpose of the sub-lists which would make me to
> support them: them to be information centers: technically skilled people
> would respond there on technical questions and referene sources. Example:
> ga-root could be used only for IEFT, IAB, foreign root people to respond,
> to inform. Discussions strictly forbidden. This way we could have a common
> understanding (not an agreement) about the different positions.
> Jefsey
>
> On 05:59 14/06/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>
> >Conspiracy theories are fun, aren't they? But they are also without
> >accountability. They free "us", whomever that is, from  having to do real
> >work.
> >
> >
> >after all, real work wouldn't be recognized anyway, because... fill in
> >conspiracy theory 1,2,2.5, etc.
> >
> >That's .... entertainment.
> >
> >But not work.
> >
> >I struggle to have time to even read our GA emails to each other. Real work
> >issue which threatens the net, like the Cyber Crime treaty, data retention,
> >and Hague Convention, legislation being introduced in Ohio, Nevada (U.S.),
> >or Netherlands/Germany, governing the content of the Net and creating
> >"islands" of content take over my real day to day life. Not ICANN issues,
> >but real, "stop the Net" issues.
> >
> >Let's see if we can together achieve a meaningful role/narrow set of
> >activities which deserves our time.  I have to go off and do real  hand to
> >hand combat on the issues above.. THEY AREN'T ICANN'S ISSUES.  AND I, IN
> >PARTICULAR DON'T WANT THEM TO BE.... But doing the technical aspects of the
> >Net are so critical, that I must pay attention there too...   I want GA to
> >be meaningful - I assume that we can find a way to truly represent
> >perspectives and dialogue and contribute.... I don't subscribe to conspiracy
> >theories because ... I suspect that after all, good and well meaning folks
> >would route around them anyway.  :-)

  I don't either.  I do recognize that there are many problems the have grown
upon themselves with the ICANN Experiment.  They are festering.  The GA
and the DNSO in general not withstanding.  Hence this raises the ire of
conspiracy theories.

>
> >
> >Let's forgive each other for not being perfect. Let's agree that we can be
> >pleasant, as we are to the folks next door where we live, on the streets we
> >walk on, and remember it is flesh and blood we interact with...  and let's
> >see if there is work to do.
> >
> >Okay, ideas for work:     There is a questionnaire from the DNSO on WHOIS.
> >How about we post it, and encourage all XXX GA members to fill it in,
> >factually.  Small request. But a deliverable.  I know, we all have opinions.
> >I'm interested in facts... let's learn together.

  Good suggestion.  I have a better one, I think.  Why don't we come up with
our own WHOIS questionnaire?  I have responded already to the
ICANN version which I found a number of leading questions that seemed
very troubling and misleading in nature, as Joanna indirectly indicated.

>
> >
> >Secondly, how about we ask the GA members what their characteristics are:
> >in broad categories, so we can say: the GA is representative of:   XX SMEs;
> >XX Corporations; XX non profits/civil libertarian organizations; XX
> >individual concerned about YYY; XX universities; XX... please realize I'm
> >struggling with categories... my only purpose for this is to say: let's see
> >if we can say "we are representative and of what, and then we can also use
> >the data to recruit... participation.

  This is also a good idea as well as long as this data is not used to select
committees based on those categories...

>
> >
> >thirdly, I wondered if the GA would agree to schedule itself BEFORE the
> >constituencies so that it can be more of a vehicle into the Constituencies,
> >as we "used" to do... [I know, I suffer from being around tooooo long]...
> >but that made the GA really more useful/meaningful... means that the
> >constituencies don't report in, but instead, take input from...

  Another very good idea here as well.

>
> >
> >Fourthly, how about inviting a presentation from the IAB/IETF (happy to help
> >to plan) on the issues which are really critical, from technical standpoint.

  We would also have independent standards bodies participate as well
as the W3C and the IEEE.

>
> >We have started this in the ISPC and BC, and it is really a  great learning
> >and educational experience.  And, of course, we have some folks already in
> >the GA who are leaders in these issues... and could ask their help in
> >getting very high level presenters...

  We have a number of long time IETF members as well as other standards
bodies here as well already.  I am among them, as are Karl Auerbach,
Simon Higgs, Kent Crispin, and others of course...

>
> >
> >I can tell you that the constituencies are very appreciative of their time
> >and feel that they are learning from these exchanges.  I bet that using the
> >GA for this would be even more powerful... and have a broader impact...
> >think of it: shared knowledge... and opportunity to dialogue. Let's not get
> >into "challenge" but think of it as "dialogue".  [Referees will be .....
> >never mind.  :-)]

  Yes referees!  That is where the rubber meets the road isn't it?

>
> >
> >anyone interested in these ideas?/??  They are only suggestions, so can you
> >deal with the merits, and avoid attacking the suggestor?  It would be nice
> >if we could get to the part where this plea isn't necessary.
> >
> >I'll count the criticisms, try to find meaning in them,  and look for the
> >meaningful comments.

  I think we need to move forward with the assembly process where
motions that were proposed and moved up for a vote by the GA
members and new ones are proposed from the GA itself and from
WG's where participation is open to anyone that wishes to participate.

>
> >
> >Regards, Marilyn
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alternate Chair [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:42 PM
> >To: William S. Lovell
> >Cc: Derek Conant, DNSGA; Philip Sheppard; [ga]; M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN
> >Subject: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:38:24 -0700, William S. Lovell <wsl@cerebalaw.com>
> >wrote:
> >To: Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>; DNSO Secretariat
> ><DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>; M. Stuart Lynn <lynn@icann.org>
> >Cc: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>; <ga@dnso.org>; <ga@dnsga.org>
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Thanks for support
> >
> >
> > > This whole dnsga/dnso ga bit is getting everyone confused.  Actual
> > > confusion is the best proof of likelihood of confusion in trademark
> > > (and, of course, service mark) law.  If ICANN legal staff are not drafting
> > > a "cease and desist" letter to this dnsga.org upstart they ought to be.
> >
> >Hi Bill
> >
> >Thank you for your comment.  Danny Younger, the Chair of the DNSO GA seems
> >like an intelligent and well-meaning person.  Derek Conant, the Chair of the
> >DNSGA seems like an intelligent and well-meaning person  When Danny Younger,
> >the Chair of the DNSO GA made one proposal relating to the DNSO GA, Derek
> >Conant, the Chair of the DNSGA, the Chair of the DNSGA, made a well-meaning
> >but confusing counter-proposal.   Now everybody is confused.
> >
> >Ahha !!  But is the confusion deliberate ??
> >
> >But, if you look at the whole history of the GA as a think-tank, you will
> >see that it is particularly ineffective.  Every proposal to move forward is
> >met with a counter-proposal.  Every suggestion, however mild, is met with
> >rejection, hostility or criticism.  Diversion of topic is the norm and there
> >are far more postings about the process than the substantive issues.
> >
> >Of course, much of this is expected in a think-tank consisting of
> >intelligent and informed persons many of whom have an interest in the
> >outcome.  But as an intelligent person myself I find it incredibly hard to
> >believe that all this confusion is a natural result of the list dynamics.
> >
> >I agree that leadership is required and of course that leadership MUST
> >listen to the comments of the list members and act within the rules, but
> >there is a problem.  That is that the leadership feels increasingly
> >alienated by the stridency of the views expressed.  And increasingly
> >confused.   The reaction is inevitable, the leadership becomes isolated and
> >out of touch wiith reality.  Angry, desperate and unpredictable.
> >
> >This is seen in a total failure to heed well-meaning advice.  And paranoia.
> >
> >Which brings me to the conclusion that there is, somewhere, a mastermind
> >guiding the whole scheme. It's a well-known strategy of disinformation used
> >by security services around the world.  Some have naturally attributed the
> >problem to the shadow services (or Verisign -- an associate).  Others think
> >it's inspired by ICANN or its staff.   Personally I don't know who.  But I
> >more than sense the countervailing forces.
> >
> >And I salute the opposing General !!!
> >
> >Best regards
> >Patrick Corliss
> >
> >
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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