RE: [ga] GA Credibility.

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Roeland, your comments made a big impression on me. Thanks for reminding us
of the need to be focused... and coherent.

Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 11:59 AM
To: 'Jeff Williams'; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Danny Younger; General Assembly of the DNSO
Subject: [ga] GA Credibility.


> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 11:03 PM

>   I believe that complaint's as have been discussed on this 
> forum are that
> one person cannot accurately provide or present an accurate report to
> the NC.  I join im that concern given the Rewrite of the WG-Review
> that was done recently...

Hello all,

I've been busy getting a fairly complex server online and have not had the
time to read all of the past weeks messages. I also have a couple of new
engagements starting up. These things will keep me occupied for a few days,
at least <g>.

This has given me a wonderful opportunity to step back to the 50,000 foot
view of these lists. It occurs to me that we have been so aggressively
bashing each other, in public, that a cursory review of these proceeding
will show the casual observer that NONE of us should be trusted with even as
much as a sharp tooth-pick. It might be used as a weapon. Jim Dixon's
comments wrt "adult supervision", of a few years back, comes to mind.

Two major credibility breachs come to mind wrt GA credentials; DNSO.ORG
charter re-write, after Monterrey and before Paris, the WG-Review process
from start to short finish, with subsequent rewrite and re-direction of the
WG-Review consensus document.

Regardless of where one falls, on these issues, one can't help but recognise
the stunning lack of credibility of a body with such highly credentialed
folks in attendance. It's an anomally. Having met many of you F2F, I might
also point out that much of the on-list behavior is a caricature of the
normal F2F presentation of many of you.

In addition, many of have realized for quite sometime that, the DNSO/GA is a
beard for the ICANN. It is intended to show the non-ICANN world that the
ICANN is indeed open. What it also does is demonstrate, for the ICANN, that
general transparency isn't ready for prime-time. It is the strongest
argument against the @LArge that the ICANN has. A demonstration of chaos, if
you will.

Going into the Stockholm meeting, those attending might want to reflect on
this.
--
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
--
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