Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C-

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@hotpop.com>]

Dear Sotiris,
On 03:15 04/01/01, Sotiropoulos said:
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
>"I chair Digital Continuity an association againts the Digital Divide.
>         I would add that to participate into any internet governance team
>         it should be necessary to be bilingual and that any decision should
>         show how it fights the Digital Divide."
>
>Any two languages?  How's Greek and English?

Absolutely. Chinese, Papuasian, Cormick, Spanish, Afrikaans, Inuit,
any language:
- keeping you to understand that 96% of the people did recount votes
- allows you to directly understand and discuss real needs of local
    people from any culture
- demonstrating your brain is able to think in two directions, ie possibly
   keep supporting what you propose and understand what the other say.
- without any need for legal study understanding why Joe Sims and al.
   ICANN artificial current construction is inappropriate to the job if these
   people really want not to show themselves as an USG/ATT/IBM/SAIC
   satellite.

We are discussing the way of reaching consensus in the DNSO here.

- first need is to be able to be in contact what the constituency system
   forbids
- then we need to be able to talk together what the prevailing NC based
   culture forbids
- then we need to professionally decide through consensus together
   what the voting approach (leading to compromise) forbids.

The saddest illustration of all this is the entrance of Philip in this WG;
- latest arrived (nearly too late).
- starts telling us with authority why we are out of our baskets
- assigns new rules and missions without coordinating first with the
   Chair, etc...
- explains us why we should stop electing a coChair
- is explained to be nominated to be next (hopefully soon to be
   defunct NC) and because of that to be next NC Chair.

This plainly shows that the basic reason of DNSO inability to do
anything properly is the NC. Wrong doing, wrong questionnaire,
wrong approach of this WG, wrong management of this WG....

Actually constituency are less a problem as they may be
retained as way of GA people to coordinate propositions... The real
anti-consensus problem is the NC hi-jacking by pre-defined
groups (constituency) introducing a rigidity and arrogance that
its Member have not as human being.

Now, many will tell this is out of the questionnaire's scope and
charter's scope. I do not think so: we can certainly - all of us -
respond very quickly and in detail the questionnaire's:

1. introduction: we identified that the problem was the author
    of the questionnaire's and that the questionnaire's and its related
    procedure was the problem.
2. to respond each question in showing how the problem is
     primarily or also created by the way the NC has been proposed

I am aggressive towards no one. I think no one is wrong, but that
Dennis Jennings' Irish plan proposition has been adopted and
legally spelled out by Joe Sims too fast without the proper review.
And that based upon experience it is the role of this WG-Review
to tell it and stop playing according the rules it identifies as wrong.

I may be wrong: I would certainly accept it.
Please Kent, Ken, Philip, and others explain us why.

Jefsey


> >"The first solution for having people like you, me and common people
> >talking together is to drop the artificial mechanic of the NC and its
> >seats, limited representation etc....
> >1. one GA open to all who want to share and may survive the individuals
> >in here.
> >2. ad hoc working groups proposed by centers of interests, associations
> >structures, club, whatever you want
> >3. concertation at WG Chair level (one WG one vote) to check that the
> >proposed documents are professional and non conflicting.
> >4. nomination and election to the BoD by the GA after nomination
> >approval by the Chair Concilium (to avoid internal disputes and permit
> >NICs to get one out 3 sites as it should be the case in the ASO and
> >PSO, due to special duties and responsibilities).
>
>Finally, something we can build on!  Jefreka!
>
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html