Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:29:19 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
Subject: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up
> The new lists are admittedly an experiment. Let's experiment a little
> longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results. One of the major
> issues that we must confront is the inevitable restructuring of ICANN . .
> It is my hope that this group can elect their own Chair, establish
> Terms-of Reference, Timelines, and collect sufficient background
> documents to rapidly educate those of us new to the process.
Members, GA Assembly
I think it should be clear by now that Danny issues pronouncements
without effective consultation with me or others. I am sorry if this
I have asked almost all of the people nominated below, both privately and
onlist, if they would volunteer their services as a sub-group Chair. From
memory, one person ignored the request and the others declined. I do not
expect a significant turnaround.
Personally, I think the formation of sub-groups is the only effective way
that the GA can operate. As you all know, I have tried without much success
to promote their use. My view, as I've said publicly and privately, is that
there are too many sublists. Many people have found the situation a little
confusing and I have tried to help where I can.
The current problem arose for three reasons. One was that Danny created a
sublist [ga-review] without the support of the wg-review participants. He
then disagreed with my request to use [ga-icann] for postings relating to
the restructuring of ICANN. He sees that [ga-review] is more appropriate.
However, its "terms of reference" clearly show its purpose as the
restructuring of the DNSO and not ICANN as a whole,
The last reason was that somebody, perhaps the DNSO Secretariat, created
another mailing list for issues relating to .org. We really do have to
consider the scope and viability of these lists. I would therefore repeat
my earlier comments:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:02:30 +1000, I wrote:
Subject: GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists
> In other words, I don't care very much how the work is allocated between
> lists but, for each list, whether it is viable and, if so, what purpose it
> will serve. Unless we address that issue the lists will not be very
> effective as a tool for policy formulation.
> Personally I think seven sublists is too many. I would value input from
> the list members in relation to how they see the system working most
Perhaps I should clarify that I am referring to the whole system including
working groups, terms of reference et al. This has all been discussed in my
previous postings. I will repost one that I made to [ga-rules] on 2 June.
My view is that we need a bit less top-down and a bit more bottom-up !!
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