Re: [ga] RE: Consensus development process

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

Eric and all assembly members,

  Ok eric I am sending this to the list as you indicated below in your
comments.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Ok, you pigsticker ;>}
>
> We are in accord.  It will only be a preparing committee.  Which by participation and an
> informal vote can force the Secretariat to place it on a vote.
>
> Easy, and it will all be open and transparent and any member can participate but the committee
> takes a vote and then puts it to the assembly for vote.  If it don't pass it can be
> immediately raised again.  Recall of "committeemen" will be easy by a petition of 13 or more
> members, along with a replacement.
>
> You are absolutely correct that easy voting mechanism is the key.
>
> Now we are getting somewhere, thank you for your dedication.
>
> Don't tell anyone but I love it when we attack each other, you remind me of a brother.  I hope
> you are well and thanksgiving was good.
>
> Hey when you add your comments perhaps this should go to list.
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > It is easy to see that you are just arguing to argue, out of some basic need you have to
> > > be right.
> >
> >   I am sorry that you have this narrow and skewed view.  None the less
> > it does not change anything or does it change our members decisions.
> > I am not empowered to do such a thing even if I could.  I happen to
> > share our [INEGroup's] view.  The DNSO GA members have made
> > their decision as well some time ago.  This has not changed.  However
> > should you wish to craft a motion to provide for such a change
> > please feel free to do so.  I for one encourage your doing so.
> > I may not however support such a motion and advocate against
> > it as well.  This is how a ASSEMBLY works.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > And again you attack the messenger and not the message, looking for some fun sort of
> > > intrigue and motivation that simply does not exist.  And again you refer to some vague
> > > history that simply does not exist.
> >
> >   Yes it does exist Eric, and you also know it does.  It is all on the DNSO.ORG
> > web site for your review at your leisure.  I am not going to look it up
> > for you any more again.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > And you of course are wrong regarding Assemblies not have committees and councils.
> >
> >   Yes as advisory groups and as far as the GA is concerned as long as
> > they are open to any and all GA members to openly participate in
> > as well as vote upon.  The GA has already had such committees.
> > As far a councils go, this is another matter entirely of course.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Consensus building is taking two or more opposing positions and getting them to agree.
> >
> >   You mean compromise.  However consensus, as you well know must be measured.
> > to do that a vote must be taken.  Ergo the GA members must vote, as I
> > directly indicated, before such a compromise consensus can be accurately
> > determined.  Otherwise we are only playing with words and making
> > declarations like the UDRP non consensus declared by the than ICANN
> > BoD.  As you know or should know that led to having the WIPO
> > rep. kicked off to GAC and the UDRP under fire in 11 different countries
> > and rejected in 5 other different countries.  Ergo again, no consensus
> > was ever reached in actuality, only declared so a to circumvent the
> > MoU and the White Paper, which are our "Bill or Rights" and constitution
> > for the ICANN process experiment.
> >
> > >
> > > Show me one of your posts that attempts to do that.
> >
> >   I have already don this a dozen times now for you Eric.  I am not your
> > personal secretary nor am I paid as a member of your personal staff.
> > The DNSO GA Archives as well as the Archives of comments@icann.org,
> > comments@iana.org and the Domain-Policy list have them documented
> > nicely.  In addition there have been several polls taken on the atlargeforum.org
> > in the list archives there as well.  I would also mention that in my capacity
> > I have posted the URL's for news interviews on CNN.com, Wired.com,
> > msnbc.com, and internetnews.com on a number of occasions as well
> > had you booked marked them into a folder they would be at your
> > ease to pull up.  If not then you will have to search each of those
> > sites article archives and find them yourself.  After posting them
> > on a number of occasions, I don't feel I need to do so again.
> >
> >   Now I hope that I have been clear, concise, and exacting in
> > providing you individually with where, and how to locate the
> > information you seek.  If you are not willing to do the WORK
> > yourself this time, that is your own affair, not mine.
> >
> > > You consistently either attack a
> > > position of support it.  My council Idea is the best way to correct the problems with
> > > the NC/Chairs/Secretariat.
> > >
> > > Perhaps if we call it a standing oversight committee you would not be so opposed.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > Jeff William's wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric,
> > > >
> > > >   You should know how and "Assembly" works.  It is not a body that
> > > > has representatives as you seem to be suggesting.  Each member
> > > > in an assembly represents themselves.  Hence the formation of
> > > > the General Assembly was borne.  But this was before your
> > > > starting in your participation.
> > > >
> > > >   The members cannot kill getting things done.  Rather they are
> > > > and have been trying to facilitate in getting things done and have
> > > > shown that they will vote pretty well on issue related motions.
> > > > This is  documented pretty well on the DNSO.ORG web page.
> > > > Look it up!  >;)
> > > >
> > > >   Where problems have occurred is when some
> > > > member or a few members have tried to change the assembly
> > > > process.  This includes the NC, the two different chairs/alt chairs,
> > > > and the DNSO secretariat.  It has NOT been the members.
> > > >
> > > >   So Eric, please try to be cooperative and help facilitate
> > > > participation by the members instead of trying to create a position
> > > > for yourself in order to justify some means that you may have
> > > > in mind, and much progress can be, as has been on occasion,
> > > > made.
> > > >
> > > > Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Rethink this please.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is the only way to get the decision into the hands of the GA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having to get consensus from every member on all procedural matters is
> > > > > killing
> > > > > any effort to get things done.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Chair cannot do it, and it is unrealistic to expect the bulk
> > > > > membership to
> > > > > spend the time and care.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Eric and all assembly members,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   I don't believe a "Council" is needed or even desired.  To have one
> > > > > > takes the decision making out of the hands of the GA Members
> > > > > > or stakeholders and puts it into a the hands of a few.  We have
> > > > > > a voting mechanism that can be used and has been used to
> > > > > > affect such decisions by the GA members.  It works.  It
> > > > > > could of course be improved.  But it does work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In case anyone cares, ME TOO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is why I propose a GA council.  If we have hundreds of members and only a
> > > > > > > handful or two of participants.  Let us formalize it so the participants can
> > > > > > > be held accountable and real work be achieved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Heck, if we form a council that can pass resolutions and create consensus
> > > > > > > mandate on a practical level we can move forward. And when we move forward it
> > > > > > > will be with the will of the people and any top - down opposition can be
> > > > > > > immediately identified as such.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > Eric
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 02:26 26/11/01, Eric Dierker said:
> > > > > > > > >"legitimacy in terms of representation of all stakeholders"  Needs to be
> > > > > > > > >changed
> > > > > > > > >to all interested stakeholders.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear Eric,
> > > > > > > > here is the difference between consensus and democractic process. In
> > > > > > > > democracy you make sure that every people is represented. In consensus (as
> > > > > > > > per the new social model or "me/we" model) you try to make sur that every
> > > > > > > > piece of concern for every people is represented. Like in a Courts, when
> > > > > > > > thousands of people may sue one corporation: each of the party is
> > > > > > > > represented by a small lawyers team.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What counts is not the number but the quality (competence, scope) of the
> > > > > > > > "champions". This is also why 2/3 is only a rough rule taking into account
> > > > > > > > that many people may vote against their own position if they see that the
> > > > > > > > resolution is not a real consensus and will create more problems than it
> > > > > > > > will solve. 2/3 are no consensus, but it can be accepted as a good test if
> > > > > > > > voters are responsible people and if all the process outlined by Danny is
> > > > > > > > followed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is certainly appropriate to the ICANN ICP production and to a serene
> > > > > > > > management as per the MoU. It is not for the mission creep.
> > > > > > > > Jefsey
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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