Re: [ga] DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Derek, you have just described the equivalent to the names council, but 
within the GA.  Another layer of beaurocracy.

On 12 Jun 2001, at 20:20, Derek Conant wrote:

> The DNSO needs to move forward, whereas, it does not appear to be making
> progress.  There may be indeed hundreds of posts within this forum,
> however, that does not show that the organization is anything more than a
> general chat channel.
> 
> The DNSO needs to move forward and to do this I propose the following
> DNSO GA restructuring suggestions:
> 
> 
> DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING
> ======================
> 
> 1.  Forget counting everyone's votes.  GA representatives should take
> control over the non-active participants in this forum and move this
> process forward.
> 
> 2.  The DNSO GA should rely on the votes of 9 qualified GA
> representatives that continually demonstrate their constructive
> participation.  It should be easy for the active participants here to
> decide who the 9 GA representatives should be, as based upon their
> demonstrated, verifiable and constructive participation.
> 
> I could begin to qualify the following individuals as GA
> representatives:
> 1.    Sotiris Souteropolis
> 2.    William Walsh
> 3.    Jefsey Morphin
> 4.    Marilyn Cade
> 5.    Eric Dierker
> 6.    Leah Gallegos
> 7.    Joop Teenstra
> 8.    Bret Fausett
> 9.    Joanna Lane
> 10.  Roeland Meyer
> 11.  David Farrar
> 12.  Kent Crispin
> 13.  Derek Conant
> 14.  Patrick Corliss
> 15.  Patrick Greenwell
> 16.  Jim Fleming
> 17.  Sandy Harris
> 18.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> 19.  Jeffrey Williams
> 20.  Danny Younger
> 21.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.
> 
> 3.  The 9 qualified representatives will hold their posts for only 2
> months.  1 Week before the expiration of the representative's 2 month
> term, the GA active participants again vote for 9 qualified
> representatives.
> 
> 4.  The 9 GA representatives request input from GA members for GA
> agenda.  The 9 GA representatives give the GA members several days to
> respond, then the 9 GA representatives weigh the information contributed to
> the forum and vote on the GA's position.
> 
> 5.  GA members may suggest new material and subject matter that is
> considered off topic.  However, the GA's current position and schedule must
> be clearly posted and informative and the GA will schedule such new
> material for consideration for the following weeks agenda.
> 
> 6.  Regardless of the GAs current position, it must be open to new
> perspectives and be flexible enough to change its position upon
> constructive information.
> 
> 7.  It should take only 1 week or less for the GA to develop or change it
> position from information received within its scheduled agenda from GA
> members.  It should not take several months to produce GA agenda or
> positions.
> 
> 9.  The process is open and transparent and GA members will see how the 9
> GA representatives reached their conclusions.
> 
> 8.  Only 9 people vote on GA subject matter.  I believe that the 9 GA
> representatives will want the GA process to be successful and therefore
> will use their best judgment in representing GA positions.
> 
> This is the beginning of what I was trying to describe through the
> DNSGA's APO concept or model at
> http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> 
> I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.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 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