[ga] Re: The end of the road

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:31:47PM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> on 12/4/01 2:16 PM, Kent Crispin at kent@songbird.com wrote:
> > 
> > The GA, however, is a zoo, and nobody takes it seriously.  Since people
> > don't take it seriously, there is no particular reason to speak up if it
> > takes an insane or wildly unrealistic position, and hence the assumption
> > that the people who do speak up are a consensus is clearly invalid.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up from the Staff that the GA's position is untenable.

Nothing I said has anything remotely to do with the ICANN Staff; your
assumption that there is even a GA "position" to evaluate is very much
at issue; and your statement does not relate to the point I was making. 
In all honesty it seems to me that my message simply provided you with a
convenient hook upon which to hang a goodbye message. 

Be that as it may.  While I am firmly convinced that it is essentially
ludicrous to speak of the "position of the GA" as a whole, that does not
imply that I think that every member of the GA is worthless.  Quite the
contrary -- there are a great many people on the GA list that I hold in
high regard.  

Nonetheless, the GA as a forum for determining consensus, or indeed
*any* decision-making at the level required for ICANN, *is* worthless,
and the sooner we rid ourselves of the illusion of power, the better. 
The GA is a forum for discussion, not decision, and it cannot be
otherwise.  At the base, the GA is an open email list, and such a base
is simply not adequate for decision making at the level required for
ICANN. 

I said that the GA is for discussion, not decision.  Indeed, the GA
could be extremely valuable as a discussion forum, but in fact it is
failing even at that.  This fact is at least as disappointing to me as
it is to you. 

> on 12/3/01 6:23 PM, L Gallegos at jandl@jandl.com wrote:
>  
> > It seems to me that every time an individual is willing to give the
> > passion, time and effort to areas where individuals need a voice, that
> > willingness is shunned or totally discouraged to the point where he or
> > she gives up.
> 
> That's right, and unlike Roeland, I don't feel the need to give any advance
> warning.  

Yes -- trying to teach ICANN how to be a government is like trying to
teach a pig how to talk -- it's frustrating for you, and it annoys the
pig.  The point is, of course, that it is a stupid waste of *your* time
to try to turn ICANN into something it can't be.  (I know the game very
well, because I spent several years on a similar fruitless mission.)
More specifically, it is a waste of time to try to restructure ICANN --
structure is simply not the issue; the nature if ICANN is determined by
external constraints, not internal ones. 

On the other hand, it is most definitely *not* a waste of *anyone's*
time to develop cogent input about domain name policy.  Despite your
insinuation above, I really don't speak for the ICANN staff.  But from
my dealings with them, I believe that they are in fact deeply interested
in responsible and constructive input in the subject area of primary
concern to them, namely, domain name policy.  But they really can't do 
much about the constant outcries for massive changes in structure.

Kent

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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