[ga] Re: Blocking and Consensus speak

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

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I take the following snippet too discuss to very important issues.
>
> Blocking;  Apparently this is well documented.  I have every page of ICANN archives
> bookmark and have enjoyed reading back to 1998, yes I am nuts but wait till you read
> your charactar in "the ICANN Conspiracy".

  Is this "ICANN Conspiracy" a book?  >;)

>
> And I want a chapter on discrimination and blocking but I can not find any such
> reference in the GA.

  See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/maillist.html for further
details if you are having trouble.  There are a number of Archived
references in this archive file for instance...  There are even more
before these dates.

>  (oh don't worry I have plenty for the constituencies.  Also
> funny anecdotes regarding attending ICANN meetings and being snubbed because you
> weren't somebody. But could someone give me a reference to blocking in the GA?)

  Just gave you one whole archive full of them.  See also:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/maillist.html and inparticular:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00009.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00023.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00710.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00774.html
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00787.html
Also even further back at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc01/maillist.html
Eect, ect, ect ad nausium...

>
>
> Consensus Speak;
> 1.    It is rude to make references and claim matters that should be known by all but
> not reference them for the sake of other listeners that do not know, in otherwords
> don't talk like you are long time friends and exclude a party interested enough to
> listen.

  Many of these references to which you speak have been referenced many times
I just did SOME of them again for you.  As these amongst many other references
have been referenced again and again it seems rude to yet again suggest that
not repeating such overly redundant exercises for anyone's memory rejuvenation
or lack of will to do it for themselves seems utterly absured in the extreme.

>
> 2.    Carnegie sandwich, tell them how good they are doing at the beginning and end
> and criticize in the middle.

  Huh?  Who or what are you referring to here?  What was that about rude
above???

>
> Jeff left out the bottom half of the sandwich and criticized others in the middle.

  No I did not Eric.  Yet again you falsely represent what I said.  But that is
ok, I am now expecting for you to do so.

>
> Very probable that Jeff supported Jefsey but antagonized others that would have gone
> with Jefsey's position and now will not.

  No I stated what I have been told in so many words by our members, and
thus far have seen from others of the GA members.  Hence I criticize no one
but simply pointed out a shortcoming.  That is constructive not obstructive
as you seem to be in this response (See just above).

>
> 3.    We can get further by asking how a position may be changed to accommodate
> differing view.

  Yes perhaps so.

>  Remember either unadorned support or attacks do not help consensus.

  And appointment without the vote of the GA members kills any chance
of near future consensus.  But we must remember that consensus must
be measured, before it can be determined/declaired.

>
> 4.    Rather than labeling something poor or rich it would be more helpful to point
> out the difficulties one party is have accomplishing a given task.  Then we can focus
> on solutions and not blame.

  Yes.  And one may also be wise to consider that solutions come from
created problems or perceived future problems, by in large.  Ergo it is
also wise to consider where/whom/what created the problem in the first
place so a to avoid it in the future.

>
> 5.    All in all we must take the self out of the picture and communicate from a
> perspective of the goal.

  To a point yes.  But it is more wise to consider the self(s) and the goal
at the same time.

> We should focus more on the "if we do this" rather than the
> "they did this"

  It is not that bipolar I am afraid...  But it is a nice thought!  >;)
Rather something like the following:
If we do this" than what are the possibilities that "They will do",
"They Can do", "They would do".  Any good strategist know this
of course...  And of course as well, there are more permiations.

>
>
> Food for thought and an acknowledgment that I am guilty of all mentioned failures,
> but when my son asked "how do I get such good judgment?"  I had to respond "by
> exercising bad judgment".

  That is one answer.  That is usually called "Negative learning".  When my  oldest
daughter ask me the same question, I responded in a bit more detail:
"You learned it from either me, from your other mistaken judgments, from
you teachers at school, or from sources of experience as well something
perhaps you read".  For your better understanding Eric, the Bible may
come to mind here...  ????

>
>
> Thank you Jeff for your hard work on this list.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >   Two very good and important points here.  The problems with
> > "Joining" has been and still remains the blocking of interested
> > parties or stakeholders in Joining.  Outreach has been poor
> > as a result as there is little interest in doing outreach when
> > interested parties or stakeholders are specifically blocked
> > from joining.  A vicious circle.
> >
> > > If they do not
> > > bother this is their problem.
> >
> >   The problem here is Jefsey, that many have bothered and been rebuffed
> > and/or completely denied participation.  This is as you know, well
> > documented.
>
> <snip>

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


--
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