Re: [ga] CONCERNS - Questions to the chair candidate's

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Jeff, Kristee, Alexander, and Thomas;

I respond by putting this as a question to the other candidates.
You see I have failed to receive the appropriate endorsements and so
I will be bowing out in less than 24 hours.
See;  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.DNSO-GAchair.html

I will continue to work here because I believe this is the first real
global democracy project that bares fruit.

Our lives are always made richer by trying.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   Well your getting closer to detail.  And I suppose that is some
> progress at least.
> (More specific responses below in-line)
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Thank you Mr. Williams,
> >
> > Adopt and see through the best practices.  Implement a series of protocols to ensure
> > legitimacy to the GA.
>
>   Good start here IMHO.  Others opinions may vary of course..
> As to Implementing a series of protocols, don't you think those
> should be developed in a WG and than with some choices, voted
> upon by the GA members to insure that the majority of the GA
> members are on board?
>
>

Absolutely correct but a strong chair leadership role could put this in place.
Although I am not so sure that the chair should not establish them and then
work through a constant rules committee to keep them up to date and
to reflect the position of consensus.

> >
> >
> > Get rid of censorship but establish an automated posting limit at seven.
>
>   Of course censorship in any of it's forms is wrong, and has plagued this
> assembly from the beginning.  However it seems to me that a arbitrary
> limit on the number of posts is form of censorship.  As such, this would
> seem to be disjointed.
>
>

Posting limits are really not censorship.  They are quantitative rather than
qualitative.  As we in the US have learned lately, we can adapt our
rights in order to maintain a higher freedom.

> >
> >
> > Appoint and support the sublist directors and establish a system so that all are
> > publicly brought about to the ga list.
>
>   Ok.  How do you propose to implement this and whom is going to pay
> for the overhead costs?
>
>

I will given the parameters mentioned in;
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03965.html
And is regardless of who is chair.

> >
> >
> > Ignore outside influence until we have our own house in order.
>
>   I will admit that ignorance is bliss, but to ignore any would be
> participant would seem to fly in the face of the White Paper and the
> MoU, even if that participant is only a part time participant...
>
>

Well you have a good point.  Let us then say "concentrate less
on outside influence until we have our own house in order.

> >
> >
> > Establish and maintain internal working groups on my previously listed concerns.
>
>   Good.
>
> >
> >
> > Fight like hell for inclusiveness.
>
>   A resolution by the GA members to require that inclusiveness without
> restriction should handle this problem...
>
>

We agree here and that is why I do not want Thomas elected.

> >
> >
> > Create a group to enforce through public pressure enforcement of the RFCs?
>
>   A very difficult task here!  Enforce upon whom or what segments of the
> Internet stakeholders.  How would this be effected?
>
>

That is what the WG will be for.  All good questions.

> >
> >
> > Establish some liaisons with such orgs as IETF,  ORSC, DoC and the like.
>
>   Very good idea.
>
>

Easier said than done but I note the ASO today discussed just such a matter.
http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html

> >
> >
> > Create positions where folks like you and Mr. Walsh have something akin to supoena
> > power to get answers to tough question.
>
>   Hummm?  I am not sure that this is reasonable or even possible...
>
>

It is all part of funding and outreach, it can be done. Just for kicks;
Think of a US Federal Court Clerk union going on line, like the are
but joining our ranks.

> >
> >
> > Support our BoD members that support us.
>
>   Does this include the "Board squatters"?  I would think not..
>
>

Hell damn no.

> >
> >
> > Effectiveness is the Key and protocol is the means.
>
>   I think you mean protocols (Plural), but I get your meaning none the less...
>
>

Could it be Protoci? ;>}

> >
> >
> > Blessed be those who care.
>
> With ICANN:  Blessed are all the stakeholders for they have inherited the
> internet...
>
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric

--
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