Re: [ga] BEST PRACTICES

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Mr. Kelsey:

Well, I think the short answer to this bureaucratic approach to life
is that the United States, at least, and indeed the Internet itself, is
a "free country," and people can discuss whatever they please
wherever they please.  Whether such DISCUSSION becomes
effective, well, we shall see.  Legitimacy is established by the
content of what is said, who has said it, and by how many, not
by any grant of right by some entity on high. When the DNSO
procedures call for a RECOGNITION of some subject by
way of a genuine MOTION, well then, and only then, will it
be necessary to acquire that RECOGNITION, which again
occurs within the GA by way of the Chair. And then there is
opportunity for the entirety of the General Assembly -- i.e.,
including those who have not elected to join into the formation
of the matter, to analyze, DEBATE, and generally run the
thing through the wringer in the good old fashioned way. But
the ga list is no place to be cluttered up with procedural
matters when that list is supposed to be devoted to larger
scale, policy-related matters. That is the substance of the
recent MOTION from Patrick Corliss, which is a good
one for which I have expressed my "yeah."  But the idea
that one could not proceed in such manner until there has
been a full DNSO-administered vote (and heaven knows
when that could possibly happen -- by Christmas?) that
grants us free GA citizens any "approval" to proceed in that
manner on our own is utterly absurd.

Your statement that there is no consensus on using
sublists is factually wrong; the long string of approvals
of Patrick's MOTION indicates otherwise.

Bill Lovell

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> William S. Lovell writes:
>  > The full text of Part I (Principles and Definitions) of the BEST
>  > PRACTICES
>  > initiative is now posted to the Archives of the General Assembly at
>  > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/msg00263.html, and it is
>  > anticipated that a DISCUSSION of this Initiative will take place on
>  > ga-rules@dnso.org.
>
> There can be no discussion of substance regarding changes to the way
> that the GA conducts its business in any forum other than the official
> GA list, ga@dnso.org.  There is no other ligitimate place to discuss the
> business of the GA.  In order to change the discussion to a fractured,
> so-called "sub-list", there must be discussion on the GA list about the
> legitimacy of the so-called "sub-lists".  So far, all discussion has
> revealed that there is no consensus about setting up these so-called
> "sub-lists", and so there is no legitimate business that can be carried
> out on them.
>
> /Joe
>
> --
> 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

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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