Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups
With all due respect, I fail to see your point.
I don't see this as any different than you or I presenting a proposal
to the GA upon which the GA reaches a consensus. If the GA reaches a
consensus and embraces the proposal, than it becomes the GA's
I see the substance of the proposal and the consensus of the GA as
much more important than the mechanics of how the proposal was drafted
or by whom it was drafted. I don't think the latter two make a bit of
difference in the final analysis.
Sunday, January 20, 2002, 11:40:37 AM, William X Walsh <email@example.com> wrote:
WXW> Sunday, Sunday, January 20, 2002, 9:26:54 AM, Abel Wisman wrote:
>> I agree wholeheartedly and like to point out further that in my original
>> proposal i made it very clear (i think) that the result of this WG would be a
>> draft that would be presented to the GA, redrawn and brought up for a vote in
WXW> But thats just it, unless the draft is drawn up with the direct input
WXW> of the GA, and completely based on the discussions that have occurred,
WXW> and continue to occur, on the GA list, which is the official
WXW> manifestation of the DNSO General Assembly under the bylaws, then it
WXW> really isn't and couldn't be presented as a consensus document of the
WXW> I understand that everyone thinks there are better ways to do things,
WXW> but the fact is that we have a framework we have to working within,
WXW> and if we do it outside that framework, we are inviting rejection.
WXW> Now, I know you are not in this group, Abel, because I know you from
WXW> other lists, and I know pretty much where you stand and where we agree
WXW> and disagree, but there are others on this list who would
WXW> intentionally try and push things outside the framework, knowing full
WXW> well that by doing so they are giving the Names Council and the board
WXW> all the reason in the world to ignore it. They then would use that
WXW> failure to further their cases against ICANN and the way ICANN is
WXW> The thing is, the issues themselves are not that important to those
WXW> people, and this is an issue that IS important. We need to not play
WXW> into those people's hands, and we need to develop whatever we develop
WXW> right here, inside the framework given to us under the charter of the
WXW> DNSO and by ICANN's bylaws.
WXW> Anything else, and we are setting ourselves up for failure, something
WXW> I know you do not want to see happen. I know you have the best
WXW> intentions, Abel, but now is not the time to force a change in the
WXW> framework, not when the issue itself is as important and with such a
WXW> wide impact as this one.
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
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