[ga-abuse] Re: [ga] [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Mr. Corliss,
>
> Are you just oblivious to the fact that the rules do not allow for any of this?
> You operate as though whatever you think is a good idea is dandy.  Well good
> buddy look at the rules read them, they are in your native tongue.  There is no
> provision for any of this, it is "illegal" pursuant to the rule which illegally
> put you in your place.  Are you just oblivious?  Would you suggest one rule that
> allows you to act in the manner you are advocating?  This is outrageous!!  No
> one man is doing more to discredit our GA.  Danny please get a handle on this
> person.  Do I have to appeal to the NC and BoD??  I just reread this post again
> and am even more dismayed!  This is truly wonderland.  We discovered in the
> WG-Review how destrcutive this type of behavoir is, it is killing any progress.
>
> Sincerely bummed

A more edifying explanation of why nothing gets done could hardly be found.
"Where is the leadership?" one person cries, and when someone tries to
provide such leadership, then the naysayers like the author of the above
rather hysterically dispute the authority of that person to have done that.
Attempts to provide "bottom up" self-organization require leadership, and
in that there is included the advancement of new ideas and their reasoned
analysis that hopefully would yield a more effective tool.   The failure by GA
so to do -- it was a "lack of consensus" that killed the earlier IC round -- has
nothing whatever to do with the NC, the DNSO, ICANN, or any other of the
"usual suspects" -- they can be guilty of enough on their own -- it has to do
with the childish and self-destructive mindset of the GA.

What is really happening here is that the author of the above diatribe finds real
competition in the post he attacks against that person's OWN notions, so in
order for that person's OWN ideas to win out, thereby giving fame and glory
to the author thereof, the advancement of other ideas must be attacked.  The
GA power elite is also dedicated to self-aggrandizement -- besides trying to
shut out new people so as to avoid dilution of its voice, it attacks others that
are in the group in an attempt to destroy those other persons' efforts.

Sheesh!

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Reposted from [ga-rules] from 2nd June 2001.
> >
> > From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
> > To: Jefsey Morfin, wanadoo <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
> > Cc: [ga-rules] <ga-rules@dnso.org>
> > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
> > Subject: [ga-rules] Mailing List Management
> >
> > My overall view is to have "virtual" constituencies.  In other words all of
> > the ISPs will have one mailing list.  The individuals another.  Businesses a
> > third.  And so on.  With working groups on particular issues like the
> > Alternate Roots, Trade Marks and Registration Systems.
> >
> > The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
> > discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly William
> > X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views which I'd like
> > to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people have a genuine
> > interest in such a discussion.
> >
> > As it is now, we have three dedicated mailing lists.   UDRP which is really
> > Trade Mark interests.  Alternate Roots which could become a constituency.
> > Systems which is really Registrars and Registration Service Providers.
> > Let's call those Working Groups (WGs) or Special Interest Groups (SIGs) with
> > dedicated people.
> >
> > Those people understand the issues relevant to their subject.  The main GA
> > list is really a "control" program of everybody.  The GENERAL assembly then
> > decides that an issue is worth discussing.  They can create a "terms of
> > reference" and refer the matter to one of the WGs.  A good example is WHOIS
> > privacy in relation to the European Community.
> >
> > The WG or SIG can come up with a policy recommendation and refer it back to
> > the main membership for a vote.  Does that make sense or not?
> >
> > Let's say the WHOIS issue is handled by GA-SYS.  You could call them WG-SYS
> > if you prefer.  They come up with a recommendation on the Administration
> > Contact.  Simple enough.  Let's say the recommendation is "that the
> > Administration Contact is the agent of the Registrant and the Registrant may
> > redelegate that authority at any time".  Fine.  We have a vote.  Adopted.
> > Passed to ICANN as having consensus among all the participants.
> >
> > So the WG Chair is the "input-output control" of the Group.  Just like any
> > other Chair of a sub-committee, investigative study or panel.  It's what we
> > do in Australia.  There's a Terms of Reference (INPUT) and a report
> > (OUTPUT).  Meanwhile the WG just chugs along doing its stuff.
> >
> > William X. Walsh sees such a system as open to capture and I agree that
> > there is a danger of that.  There are two arguments against that view:
> >
> > First that everybody who is interested in a subject can join a working group
> > of their choice.  One person may not be particularly interested in, say,
> > UDRP or WHOIS systems.  They can choose not to participate.
> >
> > Second that everything must come back to the GA list for final approval.  If
> > that list was kept light (as a control program) then you could require
> > everybody to join it i.e. set up the system so that everybody who joins a
> > sublist must be a member of the main GA list.
> >
> > The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you WILL get
> > some work done.
> >
> > Regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
>

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/