RE: [ga] Stalled

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:alexander@svensson.de]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 3:46 PM

Hello Alex,

|> Roeland Meyer wrote on 29.11.01, 14:38:40:

|> > Without a way to implement the results of the discussion 
|> > it becomes a moot effort. If we cannot point at a process 
|> > that shows a means to implement real results, most people 
|> > would rather not make the (very large) effort. The whole 
|> > thing becomes not much more than endless prattle. Most 
|> > healthy folks don't believe in wasting [much of] their 
|> > time in such idle chatter.
|> 
|> That's true. Currently:
|> [idle chatter] --> [not taken seriously] --> [no effect]

Actually, I was thinking that it's a feed-back loop. The GA is not taken
seriously, therefore it devolves to idle chatter, which gives a reason to
not take it seriously, ad infinitum.

|> I don't believe that a change can start at the end or
|> middle of the chain. It has to start at the beginning
|> with proper procedures (e.g. the Best Practices document)
|> and effective guidance with a Chair and Vice Chair
|> working with each other and with the Secretariat.
|> If people get the feeling that their ideas will get
|> drowned in idle chatter, they will stay away.

Actually, we should feel lucky and grateful that Joanna and Bill's work is
mostly completed and appears "good enough" for the task. However, you'd have
a difficult time motivating folks to follow it if they feel that the results
would be nil. What I'm really saying is that you have to work on both ends
simultaneously. Otherwise, it's like painting the Goldengate bridge, no
sooner to you get done with one end then it is time to start all over at the
other. Following a process is not without pain. As such, it wont be born
unless there is a reason to bear it.

|> > Such a simple thing as guaranteeing a vote on the NC, or a 
|> > presentation slot with the BoD, would make all the 
|> > difference. Give the GA a couple of seats on the NC and 
|> > you will be amazed at how many members you will gain. 
|> > Similarly, if the GA had a guaranteed BoD presentation 
|> > slot. The @large elections had such a huge turn-out 
|> > because the value-offering was ICANN BoD seats. There 
|> > was a direct, non-imaginary, connection.
|> 
|> Getting listened to by NC and BoD are desirable end results.
|> The GA also has to make some changes so that there is
|> a value-offering on the other side. And no, simply stating
|> that the GA is "the voice of the people" is not enough.

I disagree that they are end-results. Without that condition, the GA will
never rise to the occasion. Frankly, I think it is a miracle that we already
have the accomplishments that we do have. The GA had, at one time, a much
higher level of participation and substantive content then is has currently.
Please review the entire archive if you doubt me. I submit that it is
precisely because of the lack of forseeable effect that participation and
substance is reduced, from those halcyon days. 

You might remember that the IFWP list, when those members really thought
that they were going to have an impact, in spite of various disruptions,
produced some very good results. The point is that folks were motivated to
keep a fair signal:noise ratio because they thought it mattered. When folks
don't think it matters then they wont make the effort.


--
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