Re: [ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

The body of representatives I have suggested set scheduled agenda.  I suggest that
that GA body strictly follow the agenda and schedule.  The body of representatives
should weigh constructive information in the GA forum and put forth their own
opinions regarding subject matter and/or ask for more information regarding the
subject matter.  For this to work, the process is open and transparent.

There will be some who cannot do more than chat in the GA forum.  I stress that
the GA body should ignore the static that is not constructive and move forward
with the GA schedule and establish GA positions from the valid consensus.  I
believe that what I have proposed with the GA body will stop most of the static
currently in the GA and snap the GA into line.

Do we have 9 people willing to stand behind the GA for 2 months?  If we do, then
we have the GA body I have suggested and the ability to produce valid GA
positions.  1 week before the GA body 2 month term expires, the GA active
participants review the GA body performance and replaces certain representatives
if this is decided by the GA active participants.  This should cause the GA body
representatives to make of record why they support, or don't support, subject
matter.  This further fosters the valid consensus process and the development of
GA positions.

At some point the GA needs to grow up.  There is no malicious conspiracy in this
and I believe that the active participants want the GA to work.  Therefore, it
will work.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear DPF,
> you propose us 7 or 9 "Patrick Corlisses", i.e. good will people trying to
> make enforced an agenda without corrdination nor conesensus. This will
> result in :
>
> - 11 mails a day about the discussions of this group to be public or not
> - 5 about the fact they must be archived or not
> - 3 about them being on the the GA-Full but noton the GA
> - 7 from Patrick explaining that this dicussion is to be on ga-review
> - 1 from Danny to say it should be on ga-icann, then that it is true it
> could be on ga-review
> - 5 from each "director" to remind people that they should remember their
> own agenda
> - 11 from people saracastic about the 5 reminders
> - 3 good will mail to calm down the sarcastics
> - 7 mails to explain how we could find a better system
> - 12 supporting a similar policy to the one of the 7 or 9 directors in
> their areas (i.e. 84 to 108)
> - 5 to propose new interests
> -  3 proposing a better organization for the ExecComm
> - 2 proposing every two days a new name for the ExecComm
> - 13 to abusively explain why so and so is stupid about criticising the
> Director
> - 9 explaining why one Director has better understood the agenda of another
> Director than that Director
> - 3 feeling abused by the mails from the Directors and asking them to clarify
> - 7 to explain that the Director abuse cannot be legally handdle as we are
> international
> - 3 explaining that in their place the law is different and could apply
> - 2 asking why we could not make that law entered in the bylaws
> - 7 explaining that all this mess is the fault of Louis Touton, Lynn Stuart...
> - 12 asking if at the end of the day the DNSO GA could not be interested in
> DNS matters.
> etc..; etc...
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 08:19 14/06/01, DPF said:
> >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:00 -0700, William 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.
> >
> >My initial reaction to Derek's proposal was pretty negative but having
> >thought about it further I believe his proposal actually has
> >considerable merit which may be worth considering.
> >
> >Almost every organisation in the world has some sort of executive
> >committee to co-ordinate and make sure things happen.  There is a
> >reason for this model - because it works.
> >
> >Now once upon a time I might have suggested that the Names Council is
> >effectively the executive of the GA but this is clearly not the case.
> >The GA has no real relationship with the NC.  The GA does not elect
> >the NC, in fact the NC appoints the GA Chair.  The NC has no
> >obligation to help the GA function better even though individual
> >members may be supportive.
> >
> >So perhaps there is merit in having the GA elect its own Executive.
> >This would be an Executive with no *powers* but with responsibility.
> >Of course they would have an open mailing list but they would act also
> >as an agenda former where they spend extra time on considering what
> >issues are upcoming, leading consultation on them, putting together a
> >draft position paper and then having the GA endorse or modify it.
> >
> >These sort of things can be done by an group of 7 - 9 people far
> >easier than a mailing list of 200.  And with a more shared workload
> >than on 1 or 2 people only.  Everything would still come back to the
> >GA for endorsement but in an easily debatable form.
> >
> >If the "Exec" fail to be useful or even worse a hindrance the members
> >can be replaced or even the thing dropped as an experiment.
> >
> >However currently as a GA we are incredibly dysfunctional and upon
> >reflection the idea of an accountable organising cmte/exec might be
> >useful to improve our output.  I believe it is certainly worth
> >considering.
> >
> >DPF
> >--
> >david@farrar.com
> >ICQ 29964527
> >--
> >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

--
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