RE: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
|> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:39 PM
|> 
|> Thursday, Thursday, October 18, 2001, 6:54:41 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:
|> 
|> > Excellent work Roeland! It seems you have captured the GA 
|> consensus position
|> > in wording that would be perfect for a Motion or Motions 
|> by the GA on these
|> 
|> Consensus, Joanna?
|> 
|> I think not.

Let me see if I understand you correctly here; You don't think that the
DNSO/GA wants a stronger presence in the ICANN?

Understand that I presented the demand as an MHSC demand, not a DNSO demand,
precisely because of uncertainty ,in detail, about DNSO/GA consensus.
However, I do believe that, in the large, I have outlined much of the GA's
desires. Items #2 is MHSC opinion of the degree of repair needed to the DNSO
structure. Implementation details may vary, along with your mileage. I might
also state that my confidence level of any part of the demands being met, is
quite low. I consider the demand to be more declaratory/preparatory in
nature. If the ICANN BoD meets any part of MHSC's demands then the whole
DNSO effort moves forward, IMHO. If they don't, then the DNSO dies, also
IMHO. Failure of the ICANN to at least consider the demands, by itself, will
be a declaration of intent by the ICANN, towards the DNSO, and we can all
stop wasting our time, both here and in MdR.

What I am absolutely certain of is that, DNSO dysfunctionality requires
ICANN BoD intervention of precisely the degree which I have outlined in the
MHSC demand. The problems outlined had been extant from the start and all
attempts to remedy them internally to the DNSO have, thus far, failed.
Further, such efforts will continue to fail. The DNSO track-record is quite
clear on that point.

|> Perhaps you are suffering from some wishful thinking.  I 
|> have not seen anything resembling a consensus on this issue yet.

In the whole, I think you are wrong. While many may differ in opinions over
details, there has been near universal agreement that the GA needs a larger
voice than it currently has and that the DNSO, as constituted, is failing
its mission objectives (should we ever agree as to what the DNSO mission
objectives are), has been failing it's mission objectives from the very
start, and cannot ever meet any sort of mission objectives in the future.
--
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