[ga-roots] Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZtldby ICANN

["William S. Lovell" <cereba@oregonvos.net>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 01:45 25/06/01, William S. Lovell said:
> >In other words, instead of re-hashing for the nth time how to
> >discuss, why not JUST DISCUSS?
>
> Agree.
>
> We have worked hard to reach an agreement at the WG-Review on the way the
> DNSO could really produced some work: self created center of interests ML
> supported by sites with position links by the main contenders, the target
> being to progressively reduce the differences between the positions until
> an agreement is reached either on a consensus or on a profesisonal report
> on the disagreement.
>
> Danny who supposedly supported that method, killed it with the sub-lists,
> duplicating the blahblah....

I agree (with myself?) here, but disagree wholeheartedly that the sub-lists
killed anything.  What is needed is focus, not a maelstrom as is the ga list.

Trouble is, no one wants to get a bit of organization and discipline: today,
in his
             Re: [ga] Re: My recent motion
        Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:43:52 -0700,
Eric Drieker seems to have taken on the role of Chair himself, but that's
alright
so long as the Chair and Alternate Chair make at least some effort to keep
things under a modicum of control.  One such mode of control, of course, is
that since we're talking roots, all of this should be in ga-roots, where I am
now
posting this.  To my previous 3 reasons for why the GA is dysfunctional, I
would add a fourth: the unwillingness to settle down together in a corner
(e.g.,
ga-roots, ga-sys, or whatever) and hash things out on the particular issue in

question, without being distracted by every hare-brained scheme that might
be somebody's "stroke of genius" for the day -- soon to collapse into thin
air
for lack of attention, and then off on another wild tack -- the boat will
never
get to the harbor, so that again, nothing gets done.

> So at least let have some fun and some second degree influence. Nothing
> will never come out from the GA, WXW, Kent ... will make sure of it. But
> some ideas blossom from time to time. Only for that I think it is worth.
>
> But a poll from time to time would help discussing...

Yes.  However, a poll on what? Policies are not to be made on the passing
whims of pollees (never saw that word before), but rather on hard facts
dug out by meticulous research.  I've not seen anyone yet try to compare
the ICANN .biz issue with the rules that ICANN is supposed to follow.
That is the kind of thing that has to go into the package first, but yet the
approach is entirely hyperpolitical -- just start rallying folks to your own
(pre-conceived) side, without having shown a shred of evidence for your
position.  (This is the first political context I've seen in which a faction
is
trying to run the show on spin alone, with no substance at all.) There are
others doing that kind of research, but in this flurry of rampant political
posturing, I'm not sure anyone is really picking up on it.

But like you said, Jefsey, let's have some fun as Rome burns down
around us. :-)

Bill Lovell

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


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