Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #614
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, July 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 614

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:13:23 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Various constraints

Patrik, good suggestions. 

Can you and Danny just have a minute to consult about that, then ask the GA
to just comment. No vote needed on this; just a little discussion?

Rather than getting all concerned about whether resources are standing by,
let's see what is needed, and see if Joop's votebot is an alternative in an
interim situation.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: Alternate Chair [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 11:57 AM
To: DNSO Secretariat
Cc: [ga]
Subject: [ga] Re: Various constraints

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:10:52 +0200 (MET DST), DNSO Secretariat:

> I am affraid that the Secretariat will have serious difficulties
> to follow the current rythme of votes requested by the GA.

Hi Elisabeth

Thank you for advising the General Assembly of your difficulties.

However, I am sure you are in favour of seeking the democratic expression
of the will of the body especially as we are following this path (of seeking
consensus for rule changes) at your specific request.

Perhaps the GA might be allowed to continue its processes and see where
it leads.  Should the request be made to conduct a vote, we can schedule
the process at a more suitable time according to your convenience.

Or use an alternative such as Joop's votebot as an interim measure.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:33:18 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Joanna
>
> The original wording of the motion was:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES. However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by
> > consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot.
>
> When you objected to that I amended the wording to read:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
> > issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> You have suggested an alternative form of wording:
>
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > debated on GA-RULES until such time as and ISSUE has risen to the
> > level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
>
> I cannot see how your wording improves on the amendment.  You agree that
> there may be a "determinative ballot of the General Assembly" but you have
> re-introduced a specific *trigger* which the amendment sought to avoid.

Methinks a trigger is necessary to avoid the problem of there being an issue
raised one day, and a full-fledged, flag-draped, sound-the-trumpets motion
the next.  Motions have the characteristic of seeming to call for a vote, and
when motions are popped out prematurely, before the matter has even been
discussed, then we have people who favor the motion complaining that there
is no vote -- i.e., what is known as "railroading" commences, rather than a
calm, deliberate discussion or debate on the issue itself.  What I suggest is
that this thing be shelved for a day or two until the basic mechanisms of
the Best Practice are posted on ga-rules (where, of course, this very
discussion here should be), which should be today or tomorrow. Then
there will be something with meat to it.

I might add that the motion here being discussed would be entirely
consistent with the Best Practices if it were worded instead as

    "subscribers to GA-RULES may refer issues to the full GA for a
    determinative ballot in accordance with prescribed procedures
    that have been adopted by the General Assembly,"

It is assumed in that language, of course, that procedures such as those
set out in the Best Practices would in fact have been adopted.   My
concurrence in principle with Patrick's motion remains intact.

Bill Lovell

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:18:33 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Sotiris, Patrick,

I respond to your specific queries below.
Joanna 

on 7/14/01 12:07 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos at [email-masked]
wrote:

> Patrick, Joanna, et al.
> 
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
>> Hi Joanna
>> 
>> The original wording of the motion was:
>> 
>>> All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
>>> debated on GA-RULES. However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by
>>> consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot.
>> 
>> When you objected to that I amended the wording to read:
>> 
>>> All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
>>> debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
>>> issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
>>> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>> 
>> You have suggested an alternative form of wording:
>> 
>>> All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
>>> debated on GA-RULES until such time as an ISSUE has risen to the
>>> level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
>> 
>> I cannot see how your wording improves on the amendment.  You agree that
>> there may be a "determinative ballot of the General Assembly" but you have
>> re-introduced a specific *trigger* which the amendment sought to avoid.

Patrick,
You are entitled to your opinion, but the difference is crucial in the use
of the word "ISSUE". I agree that introducing a specific trigger may not be
prudent at this stage, but without one, anybody may say, "Look folks, here's
an issue that *I* think is so important, the whole Assembly should be
involved, hence I'm posting it to the main list", and we're back to square
one, which is exactly why I believe *implementation* should be addressed
prior to a vote. 

Questions include  *how* people on the main list are kept informed of
developments on sub-lists, *when* it is appropriate to revert to the main
Assembly, and for *what* reason. Members seem only too willing to assign an
issue to a sub-list forever, seemingly forgetting that at some point, a
decision has to be made about involving the main assembly (or not). What is
that point exactly? Nobody knows.

> I have a question with respect to your wording Patrick, and then one for
> Joanna.
> 
> Patrick, when you say:
> 
>> However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
>> issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
>> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> 
> Does this mean that any subscriber to the ga-rules may refer issues to the
> full
> GA at any given time?
> I'm sure I'm just being a little obtuse here.. but I'd like this point
> clarified
> please.

Right on target Sotiris. You are not being obtuse.
> 
> Joanna, with respect to debates that relate to ga-rules, when you state "until
> such time as an ISSUE has risen to the level of requiring a determinative
> ballot", what xactly do you mean by "risen to the level"?  What exactly is the
> standard?  I wonder if you might be able to avoid the term "consensus" in your
> response, and just be a little more specific in characterization than said
> term
> allows.

Sotiris,
A great frustration of mine at this particular moment in time is that while
Bill Lovell and I have the first part of the BEST PRACTICES document in
great shape, an ideal world would have given us more time to complete all
content prior to posting, but our hand is being forced.

It is fairly irritiating that having given up so much of our time to this
initiative, that Patrick has seen fit to pre-empt what we are doing and
while your question is absolutely valid, I beg your indulgence until the
DEFINITIONS part one of the BEST PRACTICES document appears on the ga-rules
list in the next day or so, and hopefully then, you will find the answers
you seek. Your patience is much appreciated.

Regards,
Joanna

P.S. I suggest we continue this discussion on the ga-rules list for obvious
reasons

> I'd like to have both of these points cleared before I support or reject a
> motion on these matters.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:25:22 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

on 7/14/01 1:39 PM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:

> I withdrew the term "by consensus" to satisfy Joanna's objection.  This had
> the unintended side-effect of leaving the words "subscribers may" without
> any qualifier.  Perhaps this is what Joanna and Derek identified as a weak
> point in the motion.  Thank you both.

I never objected to the word "consensus".
 
> The addition of the alternative ("or follow such other prescribed procedures
> that have been adopted by the General Assembly") means that the words "by
> consensus" might only apply to the first occasion viz. when the subscribers
> are initiating "other prescribed procedures".
> 
> It would, therefore, probably be safe enough to say:
> 
> --------- Amended Wording ----------
> All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> conducted on the [ga-rules] mailing list   Subscribers to that list may, by
> consensus or other prescribed procedures, refer issues to the full General
> Assembly for a determinative ballot.
> 
> Note.  The term "prescribed procedures" refers to procedures which have been
> submitted to such a determinative ballot and formally adopted by the General
> Assembly.
> ---------------------------------------------

Oh I see, so all the work on BEST PRACTICES, which you purport to support,
can go in the trash before it's even published. Great Patrick. Thanks a lot.

Why don't you follow your own advice and take this discussion (now argument)
to ga-rules?

Regards,
Joanna
 
> 
> I appreciate that it is a little more cumbersome but I cannot see a simpler
> way to amend the motion without creating a "bootstrapping" problem in the
> first reference to the GA.
> 
> The only question is whether we agree on the words "by consensus".  However,
> as this is our present procedure, I can see no real alternative.
> 
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:50:07 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Sotiris:

Excellent response on the very issues now being tackled.  The
Best Practices draft, of which we hope to have got a first part
posted over the weekend on ga-rules, answers your first question
as to what keeps any member from rushing prematurely into the ga,
and also your second question as to how something raises to the
level to be put up on ga.  (Briefly, the process rests on the premise
that when a solution to a problem gets to be refined enough that it
can be intelligently articulated, and there are facts to support it, it can
be made into a formal PROPOSAL, and the membership then has the
opportunity to debate that PROPOSAL and finalize its form before
it rises to the level of a MOTION (which, of course, may also be
debated, amended, etc.))

"The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly
fine."  This famous quotation is cute, but not fully applicable here: there
is nothing "exceedingly slow" about the procedure that the Best Practices
will present.

Your final comment -- "I'd like to have both of these points cleared before
I support or reject amotion on these matters" -- could not have been more
timely made: it is precisely the purpose of the Best Practices to ensure that
such questions do indeed get answered before the air is filled with ballots,
amendments, confetti, etc. etc.

Thanks for your most excellent approach to this whole thing!

Bill Lovell

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Patrick, Joanna, et al.
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Hi Joanna
> >
> > The original wording of the motion was:
> >
> > > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > > debated on GA-RULES. However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by
> > > consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot.
> >
> > When you objected to that I amended the wording to read:
> >
> > > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > > debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
> > > issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> >
> > You have suggested an alternative form of wording:
> >
> > > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should be
> > > debated on GA-RULES until such time as an ISSUE has risen to the
> > > level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.
> >
> > I cannot see how your wording improves on the amendment.  You agree that
> > there may be a "determinative ballot of the General Assembly" but you have
> > re-introduced a specific *trigger* which the amendment sought to avoid.
>
> I have a question with respect to your wording Patrick, and then one for Joanna.
>
> Patrick, when you say:
>
> >However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer
> > issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> Does this mean that any subscriber to the ga-rules may refer issues to the full
> GA at any given time?
> I'm sure I'm just being a little obtuse here.. but I'd like this point clarified
> please.
>
> Joanna, with respect to debates that relate to ga-rules, when you state "until
> such time as an ISSUE has risen to the level of requiring a determinative
> ballot", what xactly do you mean by "risen to the level"?  What exactly is the
> standard?  I wonder if you might be able to avoid the term "consensus" in your
> response, and just be a little more specific in characterization than said term
> allows.
>
> I'd like to have both of these points cleared before I support or reject a
> motion on these matters.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:54:16 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Various constraints

Patrick:

I don't believe there is any issue of "allowing" the General Assembly to
"continue with its processes."  The General Assembly is to self-organize,
our hallowed documents say, and in so doing it will indeed continue with
its processes, under the authority of those documents, regardless.

Bill Lovell

Alternate Chair wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:10:52 +0200 (MET DST), DNSO Secretariat:
>
> > I am affraid that the Secretariat will have serious difficulties
> > to follow the current rythme of votes requested by the GA.
>
> Hi Elisabeth
>
> Thank you for advising the General Assembly of your difficulties.
>
> However, I am sure you are in favour of seeking the democratic expression
> of the will of the body especially as we are following this path (of seeking
> consensus for rule changes) at your specific request.
>
> Perhaps the GA might be allowed to continue its processes and see where
> it leads.  Should the request be made to conduct a vote, we can schedule
> the process at a more suitable time according to your convenience.
>
> Or use an alternative such as Joop's votebot as an interim measure.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 04:53:01 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:25:22 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

> I never objected to the word "consensus".

<snip>

> > --------- Amended Wording ----------
> > All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc. should
be
> > conducted on the [ga-rules] mailing list   Subscribers to that list may,
by
> > consensus or other prescribed procedures, refer issues to the full
General
> > Assembly for a determinative ballot.
> >
> > Note.  The term "prescribed procedures" refers to procedures which have
been
> > submitted to such a determinative ballot and formally adopted by the
General
> > Assembly.
> > ---------------------------------------------
>
> Oh I see, so all the work on BEST PRACTICES, which you purport to support,
> can go in the trash before it's even published. Great Patrick. Thanks a
lot.

Look, Joanna, this is not getting anywhere.  I removed the words "by
consensus" in an attempt to satisfy your objection.  You say (above) that
you didn't object.

My second amendment is doing little more than putting the words "by
consensus" back again.  And again you object !!!

I am not a mind-reader.  I have not read your "best practices".  I cannot
anticipate what's there or not there in an unpublished document.

> Why don't you follow your own advice and take this discussion (now
argument)
> to ga-rules?

You are being difficult.  It is a question of legitimacy.  Nothing agreed on
[ga-rules] has any affect UNLESS and UNTIL the GA says it does.

Which is exactly what I am trying vainly to do.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:46:15 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Internet Communications by the General Assembly

While there are any number of web sites that do their best
to keep the feet of ICANN to the fire, ranging from that of
ICANN's pre-eminent Director
        Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
to those maintained by General Assembly members such
as Joanna Lane and Chris McElroy and others, and there
are also, of course, the numerous web pages of ICANN
itself, I am not aware of any web site maintained by the
DNSO General Assembly as such.  If it is "consensus"
that everyone is searching for, out of all the hoopla on
the various ga lists, to create and maintain such a web
site would be one way to demonstrate what the GA
really stands for as a group.  What content would be
placed on such a web site would of course be a grand
subject to be hashed over on those GA lists, and would
give everyone the opportunity to vent every frustration
ever suffered.

The existence of such a web site, which would have
implicit in its very existence the obligation to put
something on it, would tend to motivate GA members
into (finally!) agreeing on something! I would be willing
to serve as webmaster of such a site, provide and pay
for the hosting thereof, and do the HTML encoding
that would express whatever the GA as a whole asked
to be put up, while at the same time keeping out of it
my own thoughts on various issues, instead putting those
on the GA lists themselves, where, as you all know, I
have never felt the slightest inhibition about stating them.

The General Assembly is to "self-organize," and it
seems to me that at least an expression of GA
philosophy, what it deems itself to be and what
function it thinks it is supposed to be carrying out,
is critical to establishing as actual fact the idea that
it is "self-organizing" anything. The GA suffers from
a lack of credibility, and of the idea that it really
serves any purpose.  Out of millions of Internet
denizens, it has been able to garner only about
300 registered voters, which to me is a pathetic
number. The Chair, Alternate Chair and others
have recently been discussing the matter of
"outreach," and it seems to me that to have its
own website with which netizens around the
world could interact could serve the General
Assembly well in that regard.

If enough people respond to this, and give me
a good domain name under which to register
the site, I will do so, and will then be looking
for some good content to post on it. That
content, as noted, would have to be of a kind
that one can confidently say had behind it the
backing of a substantial block of GA members,
and without any highly controversial matters
that could not honestly be said to have had
any consensus acceptance.

Once such a site were established, with a decent
amount of "consensus" material on it, a next stage
might well be the posting, under a "FORUM" or
some such similar heading, of some current ISSUE
that was under DEBATE, and on which any and all
would be invited to send me opinions, which I would
then post -- censored only by the dictates of good
taste, no personal attacks, and the usual prohibitions
typically imposed in ISP user agreements and the like.
If I had refused to post something, the person wanting
the thing posted could of course complain to the GA,
and any and all could then commence beating on me.
When we got to that stage, I would of course reserve
the right then to post my own thoughts, with the same
rights as any other GA member. (Would I censor myself?
On some days, very likely!!)

I am presently examining the site
http://www.benton.org/Practice/Toolkit/
which may have good ideas on how an organization such
as the General Assembly ought to present itself to the
world, and whatever I find there that seems useful I
would intend to use.  If this thing flies at all, I would
also be very receptive to any suggestions on how to do
it from anyone who wanted to send them to me, and to
any offers of assistance in getting the thing up and running.

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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:42:14 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

Alexander Svensson writes:
 > it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
 > of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
 > about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
 > that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
 > GA main list instead of GA-rules.

General agreement DOES NOT exist.  I object in principle to the
illegitimate creation of these so-called "sub-lists".  I firmly believe
that both Mr. Corliss and Mr. Younger completely overstepped the bounds
of the "chairs" when they attempted to divide the ga into these
arbitrary "sub-lists".

The only reason for sub-lists is when a legitimate working group has
been formed by the NC.  The GA, in and of itself, or even in and of the
power of the "chairs", has not right or even a need to create
sub-lists.  These sub-lists have done nothing but cause trouble due to
the fundamental misunderstanding of the "chairs" about the role of the
GA within the NC structure.  They are attempting to make the GA
something it is not and was never meant to be, a body with power to
direct the will of the NC.  The NC decides its own path, completely
independently of the GA.  The only influence the GA has on the NC is
through working groups set up by the NC.

I am opposed to the notion of sub-lists.  The very idea diminishes the
importance of the GA as it makes small sub-committees more important
than the GA.  This is completely against the role of the GA as a
discussion forum.

/Joe
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:08:29 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Internet Communications by the General Assembly

As you look at sites, are there any which are operated in less bandwidth
rich countries to look at  as well?

I had a lot of conversations with interested parties from emerging economies
wh find that web access is just too expensive... perhaps  Izumi, who has
been doing a lot with the dotforce,  might have some ideas of what other
models to look at?

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Internet Communications by the General Assembly

While there are any number of web sites that do their best
to keep the feet of ICANN to the fire, ranging from that of
ICANN's pre-eminent Director
        Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
to those maintained by General Assembly members such
as Joanna Lane and Chris McElroy and others, and there
are also, of course, the numerous web pages of ICANN
itself, I am not aware of any web site maintained by the
DNSO General Assembly as such.  If it is "consensus"
that everyone is searching for, out of all the hoopla on
the various ga lists, to create and maintain such a web
site would be one way to demonstrate what the GA
really stands for as a group.  What content would be
placed on such a web site would of course be a grand
subject to be hashed over on those GA lists, and would
give everyone the opportunity to vent every frustration
ever suffered.

The existence of such a web site, which would have
implicit in its very existence the obligation to put
something on it, would tend to motivate GA members
into (finally!) agreeing on something! I would be willing
to serve as webmaster of such a site, provide and pay
for the hosting thereof, and do the HTML encoding
that would express whatever the GA as a whole asked
to be put up, while at the same time keeping out of it
my own thoughts on various issues, instead putting those
on the GA lists themselves, where, as you all know, I
have never felt the slightest inhibition about stating them.

The General Assembly is to "self-organize," and it
seems to me that at least an expression of GA
philosophy, what it deems itself to be and what
function it thinks it is supposed to be carrying out,
is critical to establishing as actual fact the idea that
it is "self-organizing" anything. The GA suffers from
a lack of credibility, and of the idea that it really
serves any purpose.  Out of millions of Internet
denizens, it has been able to garner only about
300 registered voters, which to me is a pathetic
number. The Chair, Alternate Chair and others
have recently been discussing the matter of
"outreach," and it seems to me that to have its
own website with which netizens around the
world could interact could serve the General
Assembly well in that regard.

If enough people respond to this, and give me
a good domain name under which to register
the site, I will do so, and will then be looking
for some good content to post on it. That
content, as noted, would have to be of a kind
that one can confidently say had behind it the
backing of a substantial block of GA members,
and without any highly controversial matters
that could not honestly be said to have had
any consensus acceptance.

Once such a site were established, with a decent
amount of "consensus" material on it, a next stage
might well be the posting, under a "FORUM" or
some such similar heading, of some current ISSUE
that was under DEBATE, and on which any and all
would be invited to send me opinions, which I would
then post -- censored only by the dictates of good
taste, no personal attacks, and the usual prohibitions
typically imposed in ISP user agreements and the like.
If I had refused to post something, the person wanting
the thing posted could of course complain to the GA,
and any and all could then commence beating on me.
When we got to that stage, I would of course reserve
the right then to post my own thoughts, with the same
rights as any other GA member. (Would I censor myself?
On some days, very likely!!)

I am presently examining the site
http://www.benton.org/Practice/Toolkit/
which may have good ideas on how an organization such
as the General Assembly ought to present itself to the
world, and whatever I find there that seems useful I
would intend to use.  If this thing flies at all, I would
also be very receptive to any suggestions on how to do
it from anyone who wanted to send them to me, and to
any offers of assistance in getting the thing up and running.

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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:44:01 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:25:22 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why don't you follow your own advice and take this discussion (now
> argument)
> > to ga-rules?
>
> You are being difficult.  It is a question of legitimacy.  Nothing agreed on
> [ga-rules] has any affect UNLESS and UNTIL the GA says it does.
>
> Which is exactly what I am trying vainly to do.

And you will continue to work in vain until you recognize that before one
goes to the GA for "approval" of anything, one has to have something
of substance to take there.  That has to be worked out first, and if you
start out going to the GA for a vote on some chimeric thing that has
little if any existence, you'll not get it.  The subject matter of a vote
has first to be defined, and it is only through discussion on ga-rules
(in this particular case), without any "by your leave" from anyone,
that the matter can be sufficiently defined to be worthy of a vote.
So just move all this to ga-rules and we'll get somewhere.

(Today I might have exceeded my 5/day limit; if so, my apologies,
and the monitor can commence to beat me about the head and
shoulders.)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:59:34 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

just wondering if I might proxy my 5 posts (sorry 4 remaining posts)  
to Mr. Lovell,who is much more coherent than myself today
regarding concerns about process with this motion - I'm real curious 
what he will say next regarding this rush to vote ;>)

Earl

> 
> 
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:25:22 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Why don't you follow your own advice and take this discussion (now
> > argument)
> > > to ga-rules?
> >
> > You are being difficult.  It is a question of legitimacy.  Nothing agreed on
> > [ga-rules] has any affect UNLESS and UNTIL the GA says it does.
> >
> > Which is exactly what I am trying vainly to do.
> 
> And you will continue to work in vain until you recognize that before one
> goes to the GA for "approval" of anything, one has to have something
> of substance to take there.  That has to be worked out first, and if you
> start out going to the GA for a vote on some chimeric thing that has
> little if any existence, you'll not get it.  The subject matter of a vote
> has first to be defined, and it is only through discussion on ga-rules
> (in this particular case), without any "by your leave" from anyone,
> that the matter can be sufficiently defined to be worthy of a vote.
> So just move all this to ga-rules and we'll get somewhere.
> 
> (Today I might have exceeded my 5/day limit; if so, my apologies,
> and the monitor can commence to beat me about the head and
> shoulders.)
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #614
************************