Re: [ga] Working Groups

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

Mr. Williams believes in top down contrary to our White and Green papers and our
by-laws.

Because he is a corporate exec, he cannot think out of the box.

But all of this is irrelevant because due to time and our concluded GA chair
elections Ms. Kristy will have to deal with this problem.  You ask how I know who
won, it is because I have faith in this assembly's' good judgment.

Note WXW i am no longer attempting to reach consensus but relaxing back to end
fighting because I am no longer working toward consensus.  Let the new chair handle
that stuff.

E

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Abel and all assembly members,
>
>   Abel, and I am not singling you out here, but the past influences
> the present and the present influences the future.  That is an age old
> axiom of life.  So it is true with the GA when if comes to process,
> as especially WG's.  Perhaps you should review the WG of the
> past and the archives there unto pertaining for some background.
>
>   None the less for the most part here I am in agreement with you.
> However there are a few caveats where problems arise in this
> creation of a delete WG.
>
>   Eric Dierker had the idea originally of the creation of a delete
> WG to discuss the issue of how deletes should be handled
> when a DN expires or is abandon.  He did so at the understanding
> from Chuck Gomes regarding the WLS proposal as to other
> methods, either currently being used, or in order to come up
> with a consensus (Voted Upon by the GA members) document
> that would be essentially be developed as part of this proposed
> delete WG.  Many of us have already answered the poll that
> Patrick posted http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00390.html
> in order to get an idea that such a WG was desired by the GA
> members.  In the mean time as this poll was underway Eric agreed
> to at my suggestion to ask formally the NC and the secretariat
> to approve and provide for a ML for the proposed delete WG.
> He failed to make that request,  Instead Eric decided by himself
> that such a request was not necessary or was to lazy to do it
> even after I sent to him a wording along with the subject line
> for that request to the NC and secretariat and copy the GA List.
> Sense the past three days have passed when Eric promised to the
> GA members to do this, Dave and WXW seemed to be against
> such a WG being formed and Dave refused to participate in the
> Polls (the one I sent out on WLS and Patrick's) for his own reasons.
> Nothing wrong with Dave doing so, but other members should make
> up their own minds to participate in those polls of their own accord.
> After this Thomas decided for various reasons that Eric had no
> standing to make such a request and Patrick than followed up
> stating the same thing.  My how the worms turn, huh!?
>
>   So now it seems that there is a quagmire of confusion and
> disruption from a grass roots effort to get some GA members
> generated ideas out on the table. None the less it is only reasonable
> that any GA member should and can make such requests of the
> NC and secretariat.  They work for US the GA members in part
> after all.  SO making such a request is certainly reasonable.  But
> Eric never made the request that he promised to make after
> trying to make a good and reasonable issue regarding the delete
> process's.  ANd it is only proper to make such a request of the
> NC if the GA members of the DNSO as part of the DNSO are to
> attain standing on the delete issue.
>
>   Now you Able and a couple of others seem to think that such
> a formal request is not necessary.  Well that is partly true.  But
> if you want the DNSO GA members to have standing such a
> request is reasonable and appropriate.  However if a delete
> WG outside of the DNSO is also acceptable to those interested
> that are DNSO GA members that is also doable and reasonable
> to the extent that interest is there in such a forum.  You also
> say below that ISP's can provide the resources for such a WG
> with ML for this purpose.  Yes they can, but at a price in most
> instance unless you want to use the Yahoo method, which is well
> known to mos of the GA members.  That would be free of course.
> But you must understand that would be a process outside of the
> DNSO GA and therefore would likely have little standing regardless
> of what might be determined from this approach.
>
>   The most important reason for making a formal request, as I
> several times have tried to articulate here and to Eric on the phone
> three times is that it would put the onus of responsibility on the
> NC and the secretariat to create such a forum (ML and WG).
> If they ignore such a request and the opinion of the GA members
> from Patrick's Poll, than you would have it documented that
> the NC and the secretariat are being specifically disruptive to
> a open and transparent process to adequately deal with an issue
> in a reasonable manner.  And it would be clear that the NC
> does not act in a manner that meets that White Paper and the MoU
> and are not representative of the GA members or the predominance
> of participating stakeholders.
>
> Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> > Assembly,
> >
> > On this theme a lot of post has passed us by, a vote is going on and yet we
> > are discussing the rules under which we are allowed to for, such a
> > "workgroup".
> >
> > We are discussing the past ( in which it all went wrong) the future (where we
> > repeat the past) and the present (where we wait for permission to do anything
> > wrong)
> >
> > Lst time i heard we were all consenting adults, members of a larger group (GA
> > Maillist) who like to have our opinion heard in the hope that the forces in
> > power will recon with those opinions while making decisions  or shady deals,
> > whatever comes first and one not excluding the other.
> >
> > With all respect to all given input on the WLS and on the WG, i (not being a
> > chair but a human being running a business) can sense a great deal of
> > consensus on at least two things here:
> >
> > 1. it is the distinct opinion of this assembly (all but one or two) that WLS
> > is a bad idea (tm)
> >
> > 2. A workgroup would be a very handy place to further discuss the matters of
> > "delete" (general term)
> >
> > What stops us from reaching a real consensus ? hmmmm  rules imposed by those
> > who say we can not reach that consensus.
> >
> > Are we a kindergartenclass that needs to be told when to go to the bathroom ?
> > (ok perhaps at times it looks like that but still....)
> >
> > The mentioning by PDF that self erected WG's are grounds for counter WG's can
> > in the exceptional case be true, but by stating such he delivers a power to a
> > WG that no one on this list seeks or wants.
> >
> > In a constituency the size of the GA with the input from so many different
> > angles it is almost impossible for every one to be interested and or
> > particiapting in all subjects, yet some are close to home or touch the
> > interest.
> >
> > Why would any formed WG, be it formal or informal, not be simply @approved@
> > by the GA (there is such a vote underway i believe) and present a "draft" to
> > the GA say in a maximum of 3 instances, then the GA votes aye or nay and we
> > move on.
> >
> > To impose rules upon the intricate workings of the assembly from "above" is a
> > restriction of our basic human rights to congregate and speak up.
> >
> > We as the GA want to be heard? then we need to form opinions!
> > If the GA grows (which we all hope it will do i assume) then it will be
> > harder and harder to "select" on the topics on which we can and want to form
> > an opinion and be heard. If it comes close to the heart enough we can
> > participate in a workgroup in that case.
> >
> > The workgroup reachs a form of consensus (serious majority decision) and
> > makes her proposal to the GA, i can see nothing wrong with that and do not
> > understand (i don't want to) why that shoudl be "permitted"
> >
> > In the end the "opinion" or "final draft advise" comes from the GA to
> > <wherever it has to go> as a consensus opinion of the GA.
> > How the GA got there is of little importance to the higher level of decision
> > makers, no matter what they say.
> >
> > We do not need the NC or anyone to supply us with maillists, we can set our
> > own up at any given moment in time, I am sure there are enough ISP's here to
> > provide whatever we need, I for one would have no problem in giving the GA or
> > any workgroup ample space on one of our servers, to do exactly what the GA
> > wants to do.
> >
> > Let's get real and drop all that "look important" stuff, IF the GA ever has a
> > chance of being heard it needs consensus, how it reaches that consensus is
> > therefore up to the GA and not to anybody else.
> >
> > You have for you a chance to "change the rules and playingfield" act now,
> > before this is only another "bitch"-list.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > abel
> >
> > --
> > Abel Wisman
> > office  +44-20 84 24 24 2 2
> > mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
> >
> > www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
> > www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
> > www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
> > www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
>
> 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

--
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