Re: [ga] Repost: InternetStakeholders.com
This is my personal opinion.
Aside from flame wars and really petty differences, what bothers me
most about what is going on here is that if certain factions do not want
a discussion, that discussion will not take place.
I did not join the WG review as I did not have the time to devote to it
properly. However, even though the report was written, it is very
apparent that the members wish to continue that topical discussion. In
view of the DNSO discontinuing the list, those members wish to provide
themselves a forum to continue - in good faith - with that review. It
would seem to me that it is not in any way a rogue move, but an open
and honest decision to offer that forum to those who wish to participate.
Why would members of the GA object to this if the DNSO is not going
to provide that forum? In addition, why would it be out of order to invite
people from this list (as the original invitees) to join the newly provided
forum? It is not an abuse of the list to do so, IMO. It is also quite
justified, unless having the freedom to discuss issues and save the
volume to this list is denied to individuals. If the discussion is archived,
it could be quite enlightening and valuable to the GA.
There has been a request for lists on several general topics. I certainly
hope that no single viewpoint will prevail in determining whether those
list creations are meritous, but that if there are a number of potential
participants on more than one side of the issues, that they will be
created. Lists are not difficult to create and can be retired if
participation is lacking. I doubt that will be the case, however. The
stated issues are important and on-going.
At this point I, personally, have debated further participation in a group
that seems to be determined to accomplish nothing other than status
quo, does not seem to wish to discuss anything they see as
controversial or in opposition to ICANN's existing positions on those
topics. IOW, squelsh any opposing viewpoints whether meritous or not.
It is rather like throttling full speed ahead while stuck in a mud hole and
elephants pushing the vehicle in reverse with the transmission set in
drive. We get nowhere and burn out the tranny in the process.
For those who do not see a need to discuss the impending chaos on
the net, the reform of the DNSO/GA or having suggestions from the
Chair and co-chair for possible WG lists, my feeling is there is a
purpose behind the attempts to delay those discussions. Oh well. The
delays may just have interesting results and the perception that the GA
is doomed to a role of less importance than the non existent AL will
I'm pretty much disgusted with the FUD, personal attacks, inuendo wrt
to "agendas" and the attempts to disrail any new thought or direction.
On 24 Apr 2001, at 19:11, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Sotiris, JOanna, Danny and all remaining assembly members,
> I must admit that this situation looks a little odd. It would seem
> that such a list should have been announced on the DNSO GA
> List and the DNSO Announce list if it is an official ML for the
> DNSO GA or any Working Group (WG) for the DNSO.
> I would personally urge that the DNSO GA list Chair do so
> as soon as possible if their are no objections and a motion is
> pending for this "YAHOO WG-Review list". If not possibly
> a motion should be introduced... ????
> Sotiris wrote:
> > (sorry if this is duplicated, but the original posting did not seem to
> > get through, and i think this warrants another look)
> > All,
> > I find it disturbing that Joanna Lane was encouraged to go ahead and
> > create a rogue mailing list by the current Chair of the GA, particularly
> > as she made use of a DNSO mailing list to sign the Members of the WG
> > Review up for a yahoo list which has nothing to do with the DNSO per
> > se. Pease consider the following message which was originally forwarded
> > to Jefsey Morfin, Kendall Dawson, and myself, by Joanna on April 21
> > *without* any PRIVATE/OFFLIST/CONFIDENTIAL notice:
> > on 4/20/01 6:02 PM, babybows.com at email@example.com wrote:
> > > Dear Joanna,
> > A separate ML through InternetStakeholders.com
> > > strikes me as an excellent idea, as the more members of the public that are
> > > drawn into ICANN-related matters... so much healthier will ICANN become.
> > > I see an immediate role for
> > > InternetStakeholders.com which may well go far beyond your expectations...
> > > the GA needs a better-designed official website than what they currently
> > > have. You and Kendall and Sotiris have the capability to create a prototype
> > > GA website for consideration by the whole of the GA. If the whole of the
> > > GA by resolution and ratification agrees that what you have created as a GA
> > > prototype is appropriate to the needs of the organization, we can move
> > > forward to having a link placed on the ICANN site to direct traffic to the
> > > new GA website. Just a thought, but lets face it... the GA portion of the
> > > site on www.ICANN.org really sucks.
> > With all due respect, Mr. Chair, what's all this about a GA website
> > outside ICANN?
> > (for those of you who were unwittingly subscribed to the yahoogroups
> > list entitled "DNSO Work Group Review" as listed at
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wg-review , I urge you to compare the
> > message quoted above with the message apparently posted by Joanna Lane
> > in response to Rod Dixon's questions about whether or not the list had
> > been sanctioned by the NC)
> > Regards,
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> > Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail firstname.lastname@example.org
> Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org 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@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html