Re: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

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

Kent and all assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:55:27PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > William,
> >
> > >
> > >I challenge anyone who opposes my request to tell me that our Chair
> > >and Alt-Chair have been effective, and to do so with a straight face.
> > >Opposing the request because you think a poor chair is acceptable,
> > >rather than seeking something more than simply acceptable, is
> > >irresponsible.
> >
> > What is irresponsible, IMHO, is to bring the matter to the NC when we are
> > struggling for demonstrating that we don't need NC's "adult supervision"
> > for the GA Chairmanship.
>
> This concern, IMO, is misplaced because your model is fundamentally
> flawed.  It is flawed because it views the GA and the NC as two
> independent bodies, rather than as parts of the same body.

  They are two separate bodies as parts of the DNSO or Domain
Name supporting Organization.  The GA is the General Assembly,
in case you have forgotten what GA stands for.  The NC is the network
Council.  They are like the two houses of the US Congress to
use and comparison.

>  According to
> the bylaws it is indeed the NC that is charged with "managing the
> consensus process" for the entire DNSO, and therefore, it has the
> responsibility for maintaining standards of interaction and so on --
> that is, "adult supervision" is precisely its job.

  The NC seems to have been and still remains to a degree the body
that needs some "Adult Supervision" as you put it, Kent.  However
this is a poor analysis not to mention just FUD.

>  The problem, in
> other words, is not that the GA needs to demonstrate it's ability to
> function independently -- the problem is that the NC has been remiss in
> its job of managing the GA from the beginning.

  The GA neither needs nor should have the NC managing it.  Rather the
NC needs the managing, and seemingly rather severely...

>  It is the NC that should
> have instituted list rules, not the GA.  It is the NC that should
> establish policies for GA.  The "bottom up" structure comes from the
> fact that the NC is *elected* by the constituencies.  The fact that
> there is a representational gap in the constituency structure is a
> problem, and that problem is not solved by creating a additional
> structure in the GA.

  The rest of this (Above) is just FUD and politicking to discredit the chair
and most especially to discredit the GA members and it's existence
as an independent body.

>
>
> > If you *really* thought that Danny would no longer be supported by the GA,
> > you should have argumented your points asking for a *GA action*, not a *NC
> > action*.
>
> Nope.  In my view it is precisely the NC that should bear
> responsibility for this.

  It is indeed a shame that you Kent would take this stance.  Indeed a number
of us have known however, that for some time going back to the IAHC and
the gTLD-MoU that you are against a bottoms-up approach and method
of the DNSO and the ICANN in general.

>
>
> > Try to start a straw poll, if you have enough supporters for your position I
> > am sure that the pressure will be such that a vote would be organized. But
> > if you get only half a dozen supporters, please put this issue at rest
> > forever.
>
> The idea that the GA should vote on things is fundamentally flawed.
> Despite the appearances, IN FACT the GA is an unaccountable fluid group
> of email identities, not a body of people.  The NC, on the other hand,
> is composed of real people that we know.

  Hogwash!  I don't know any of the NC members.  I do know a number
of the GA members however.

>
>
> -snip - remaining FUD/hogwash
>
> Kent
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
>

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