[ga-abuse] Re: I think you're wrong - Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

I even warned him myself via private email at least 2 messages ago
today.

And he is continuing anyway.

So don't let him claim he was not aware of it.


Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 11:36:22 PM, Derek Conant wrote:

> The GA active participants here cannot establish any valid GA positions individually.  It
> takes a record of coordinated effort to show valid positions.  Without a record showing
> coordinated effort and the valid consensus, GA positions are without merit and easily
> challenged.

> It is far harder to challenge an organized structure consisting of 9 GA Directors that
> have determined the GA's consensus and positions through its review of verifiable
> information and comments submitted to the GA forum.  It would be easier for GA Directors
> to rationalize GA information.

> The purpose of the GA is to establish GA positions based upon valid consensus, and to
> present its findings to the NC for review.  What I have proposed in suggesting 9 GA
> Directors does not conflict with the purpose of the GA nor does it conflict with the DNSO
> Charter (Where does it conflict with the DNSO Charter?).

> Furthermore, what I proposed will stabilize and enhance the GA's performance and possibly
> save the GA from the NC's chopping block.

> Other constituencies within the DNSO are progressing in developing agendas and developing
> their positions concerning their agendas.  The way the other constituencies within the
> DNSO are performing works for them.  The GA has not reached valid consensus regarding any
> subject matter and so I am suggesting that we do something about it.

> What is really scary here are that the players from the WG-Review are now involved in the
> GA demanding that their ideas will work when in fact they failed in the WG-Review
> process.  The NC killed the WG-Review process because it was non-effective at producing
> valid consensus on any tangible subject matter.  This is because the WG-Review process was
> not properly structured, nor able to properly coordinate with its members, this is why the
> WG-Review process was non-effective at producing valid consensus on any tangible subject
> matter.

> I hope the players from the WG-Review can see that their structure and process did not
> work.  I hope people here can see that a new process should be tested.

> I am not challenging the GA Chair's performance.  What I have proposed does not displace
> the current GA process.  However, what I proposed with the 9 GA Directors may show that
> most GA active participants here will not stand behind GA positions, and this should
> change.  The GA needs at least 9 individuals to stand behind GA positions.  Thus far, I
> count 3 individuals who will stand behind GA positions.  Who else should be added to the
> MEMBERS SUPPORTING GA POSITIONS list?

> MEMBERS SUPPORTING GA POSITIONS
> 1.  Danny Younger    GA Chair
> 2.  Patrick Corliss    GA Co-Chair
> 3.  Derek Conant

> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> Hello Derek,
>>
>> There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
>> does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
>> results.
>>
>> That removes the entire purpose of the GA.
>>
>> The suggestion is out of bounds, since it would require a change of
>> the DNSO charter anyway.
>>
>> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 5:36:20 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
>>
>> > Such a thing can exist if we put it into motion.  How can we get to work without a
>> > stable representative body.  Anything less than a showing of coordination that
>> > produces valid results is only chat session in the end is my point.
>>
>> > If the GA supports your being a GA Director would you accept the position for 2
>> > months?  Why not take an active role in determining the GA's direction and positions
>> > regarding subject matter?  This would be considered constructive for the GA.
>>
>> > Derek Conant
>> > DNSGA President and Chairman
>>
>> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>>
>> >> Hello Derek,
>> >>
>> >> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 3:27:19 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This looks like chat to me.  Now that we are over this, let's move forward with
>> >> > something more tangible here for the GA.
>> >>
>> >> > Are you willing to be a GA Director?  If so great!  If not, why not?
>> >>
>> >> Because such a thing does not exist.
>> >>
>> >> Let's dismiss all these wild ideas and get down to work.
>> >>
>> >> Danny, are you going to lead us or what?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> William X Walsh
>> >> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
>> >> Owner, Userfriendly.com
>> >> Userfriendly.com Domains
>> >> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> William X Walsh
>> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
>> Owner, Userfriendly.com
>> Userfriendly.com Domains
>> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>>
>> --
>> 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



-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net