RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

At 09:21 AM 12/3/2001 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>|> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
>|> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:36 AM
>|>
>|> The final report of the Review Task Force has been posted
>|> with new amendments
>|> by Phil Sheppard which grant even more powers to Council
>|> Task Forces at the
>|> expense of Working Groups:
>|> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00464.html
>|>
>|> This is an ongoing attack against this Assembly's full
>|> participation in the
>|> DNSO process.  As usual, the positions of both the GA and
>|> the NCDNHC were
>|> cited and then disregarded.
>|>
>|> At this time, I would advocate having the GA withdraw from
>|> all Council
>|> activities until the working group process is respected.  I
>|> request the views
>|> of the membership.
>
>If one were going to try and make an impact, I think that this is exactly
>the wrong approach. Withdrawing activity only let's the opponent work
>unmolested and out of oversight. They can later claim that we never
>participated and the withdrawal was tacit agreement to whatever actions are
>being taken.
>
>Danny, the past few weeks have made me disappointed in many things. The
>prime focus of the GA should be to bring itself forward. What you are doing
>here is pounding on the blockhouse door, with your head. Everyone knows that
>blockhouses only respond to cannons. You're only giving yourself a headache.
>
>Proper escalation requires successive steps via;
>DNSO/GA -> DNSO/NC -> ICANN/BoD -> USG/DOC -> USG/Congress.
>At each step, relevent issues need to be surfaced, for that step, and as
>that step's non-responsiveness is documented, issues are prepared for the
>next step. One of the current problems are that the last two steps are
>somewhat preoccupied with the current shooting-war. Therefore, issues have
>to be refined that are relevent to the context of the current focus of those
>steps.
>
>Various moptions, pleas, and other arguments have been presented to both the
>DNSO/NC and the ICANN/BoD. Thus far, there has been minimal response and
>even that has been in the wrong direction. It is time to prepare arguments
>with the US Department of Commerce, whilst at the same time, trying to get a
>Congress-critter involved.
>--
>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


I agree with Roeland.

So far, my participation has enabled us to prove the List Monitor Position 
was used to censor specific individuals, especially during critical 
times.  If I had not agreed to work with the Monitors we would not know 
this nor would we know that the WatchDog committee, who is supposed to 
protect us from impersonators actually supports them.  We certainly would 
not have evidence from 04/23/2001 when Kent Crispin received a warning from 
Harald Alvestrand for impersonating Jeff Williams 
online.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01133.html

WatchDog committee members:

          o Roberto Gaetano (List Monitor)
          o Harald Alvestrand (List Monitor)
         o Kent Crispin
         o Dany Vandromme
         o Alexander Svensson (List Monitor)
         o Izumi Aizu

;)

~k

--
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