[ga] RE: GA "Election" was fake, ignore the "results" ( was Re: [ga] Elections Results - vote count)

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 03:51 04/10/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
> Dear Ross
> I am a little dense and know not of any silly agendas on this list.
> However, if you feel that there are people on this list who are pursuing
> some sort of hidden agenda the way to get around it is to participate and
> steer the list in the right direction.  Come on!  We need sensible people.
> The more sensible people that participate and the more people that support
> the rules, the less likely the nut bars will continue.  The rules were
> devised to deal with the nut bars.  Help us.  Unless, of course, I am deemed
> a nut bar ;-)
Debbie,
you are not yet, but many most probably wander why you invest 
yourself so much into this ringmarole. And seem to maintain 
privildeged ties with ICANN. The GA list is not a place to 
"participate". It is a place which should be useful to lurke, work 
and obtain results. This is dramatically hampered by the 
"participation" of a small number of unmoderators. A correct manner 
to use the GA is Danny's.
However, due to the vulnerability of the GA and it real inadequation 
to the user/registrant needs in being related to the GNSO instead of 
the BoD, the question is the transfer of working interests to an 
ICANN/GA mailing list where the modalities could be more appropriate 
to target and obtain results.
I think this could be achieved in rereading and revamping the results 
of the WG-Review, comparing the IDNO and the currently GNSO accepted 
rules, and devising a serious selection system comparable to the 
IETF/IAB/IESG one.

> Best regards
>
> Debbie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 04 October 2007 02:40
> > To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: 'George Kirikos'; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: GA "Election" was fake, ignore the "results" (
> > was Re: [ga] Elections Results - vote count)
> >
> > Debbie Garside wrote:
> >
> > > There wouldn't be a k00k factor if one or two of "you"
> > would actually
> > > take the time and trouble to participate.
> >
> > There are any number of subscribers to this list that will
> > vouch that participation in the GA has always been hampered
> > by a couple of nut bars that have had nothing better to do
> > with their lives than try to turn this list, and the GA
> > before it, into their own playground. My participation didn't
> > change this in the past, and it won't change it going forward
> > - that is unless there are others that believe there is still
> > a need for a forum for cross-constituency and stakeholder dialogue.
> >
> > But please don't mistake that interest as support for the
> > silly agenda that a few have been pushing on this list lately.
> >
> > -r
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >