Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

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

Roeland and all assembly members,

  In the interest of arriving at a solution through a motion these
exchanges are indeed important.  Thus far I will be referencing
WXW's, ROeland's, and Joanna's comments/statements and
more importantly ideas or potential motions.
(See more below Roelands comments)

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
> |> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:39 PM
> |>
> |> Thursday, Thursday, October 18, 2001, 6:54:41 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> |>
> |> > Excellent work Roeland! It seems you have captured the GA
> |> consensus position
> |> > in wording that would be perfect for a Motion or Motions
> |> by the GA on these
> |>
> |> Consensus, Joanna?
> |>
> |> I think not.
>
> Let me see if I understand you correctly here; You don't think that the
> DNSO/GA wants a stronger presence in the ICANN?

  No offense ROeland, but to be honest here, which is important, I
believe the WXW was addressing the question as to whether there
is a consensus on your possible motion.  As such the question you ask
here would seem to be of a larger nature than what WXW was
addressing in his remarks/comments above...

>
>
> Understand that I presented the demand as an MHSC demand, not a DNSO demand,
> precisely because of uncertainty ,in detail, about DNSO/GA consensus.

  Good point.  As most of us know the devil is in the details.  Also
those details are quite important for clarity if for no other reason.
We have a process that has worked to determine consensus
within this assembly (GA).  We should use that or consider using
Joanna's 'Best Practices' documented process.

  I also share Joanna's response to WXW with respect to getting
some forward movement on this specific issue.
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02106.html
She also made another excellent suggestion with respect to
getting this specific issue to the IC as well.
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02075.html
and again at: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02081.html

  However it still seems to me that the New.net concern/issue
with the BC and membership is beginning to be overlooked
in the ongoing responses on this thread.  That is why I suggested
that a more direct approach dealing with the precise problem
by the GA, which has a unique position by which it can
responsibly address this issue.
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02073.html

>
> However, I do believe that, in the large, I have outlined much of the GA's
> desires.

  Yes I would agree with you here!  And well done also!

> Items #2 is MHSC opinion of the degree of repair needed to the DNSO
> structure. Implementation details may vary, along with your mileage. I might
> also state that my confidence level of any part of the demands being met, is
> quite low. I consider the demand to be more declaratory/preparatory in
> nature. If the ICANN BoD meets any part of MHSC's demands then the whole
> DNSO effort moves forward, IMHO. If they don't, then the DNSO dies, also
> IMHO.

  In my opinion as well...

> Failure of the ICANN to at least consider the demands, by itself, will
> be a declaration of intent by the ICANN, towards the DNSO, and we can all
> stop wasting our time, both here and in MdR.

  Food for thought here, that's for sure...

>
>
> What I am absolutely certain of is that, DNSO dysfunctionality requires
> ICANN BoD intervention of precisely the degree which I have outlined in the
> MHSC demand.

  I disagree here.  The last thing the DNSO needs is intervention by the
ICANN BoD and staff.  They have trouble just keeping up their
web page and ML's adequately.

> The problems outlined had been extant from the start and all
> attempts to remedy them internally to the DNSO have, thus far, failed.

  Sadly true...  :(

>
> Further, such efforts will continue to fail. The DNSO track-record is quite
> clear on that point.

  Well lets hope that this can be corrected.

>
>
> |> Perhaps you are suffering from some wishful thinking.  I
> |> have not seen anything resembling a consensus on this issue yet.
>
> In the whole, I think you are wrong.

  Agreed.  But we must be able to show clearly that consensus exists.
We have the tools to do that.  We must use them if validity is to be
properly and honestly established and political jostling is to come
to a definite decision.

> While many may differ in opinions over
> details, there has been near universal agreement that the GA needs a larger
> voice than it currently has and that the DNSO, as constituted, is failing
> its mission objectives (should we ever agree as to what the DNSO mission
> objectives are), has been failing it's mission objectives from the very
> start, and cannot ever meet any sort of mission objectives in the future.

  I would agree largely with this statement.  But when you have arcane and
illegitimate rules and also those that wish to see the DNSO and specifically
the GA fail, such will always be the inevitable result.  Good product
comes directly from good process.  You have little, if any success
if you do it as you go along...

>
> --

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