Re: [ga] primary objectives of the General Assembly mailing list

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JFC and all,

  I believe you summed this, and the differences up very nicely,
although
Debbie and Dr. Dierker would disagree given recent missives in
your direction.  However I agree with your view of what any
General Assembly of this sort is and/or should be.  Well done.

JFC Morfin wrote:

> At 15:22 26/07/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
> >Danny wrote:
> > > As such, I would change the wording to read "to ascertain and
> > > transmit the views of the membership".
> >
> >I think that is a well reasoned change to make.  Very often when conducting
> >market research, the opinions one is after are not necessarily those of the
> >majority.
>
> Joop,
> you are confronted here to the question of the purpose of the GA. You
> see it as a lobbying/decision tool by the people, Debbie sees it as a
> living questionnaire to the benefit of the gods who decide what is
> good for the people, I see it as a concerting forum for independent
> authorities.
>
> >To present both sides and their rationales could be very helpful
> >to ICANN and the associated bodies in formulating policy changes that take
> >into account the views and concerns of all.  I am for this change and unless
> >I hear to the contrary, I will incorporate it within the next version.
>
> Nothing prevents you to propose an other vision than Debbie's (may be
> based upon the IDNO bylaws). You failed to impose our views to ICANN
> all over the years. She legitimately tries another approach which is
> to impose her views to the GA in the ICANN best interest in order to
> benefit from the ICANN support. IMHO the real world is interested in
> something else. But who knows?
>
> IMHO everything which may decrease the informal links between
> activists and ICANN will please the NomCom and is a big risk for
> ICANN to lose grip with reality. On another hand, a Chair elected by
> 10 persons to represent the world is not serious. We only face here
> that monocratism and democratism are adapted to centralized and
> decentralized networks, but not adapted to a distributed networked
> society which calls for a polycratism we (all the mailing lists) are
> the correct place to invent.
>
> > > Please note that as some list participants are articulating
> > > the views of special-interest communities (this is a
> > > cross-constituency platform), the output of this body cannot
> > > necessarily be viewed as the "views of the ordinary citizen".
> >
> >One thing I am trying to get across in these rules, and this is something
> >that I think is most important to allow freedom for participation, is that
> >the people participating are individuals and, unless otherwise stated (as is
> >the case with our current Chair posting as himself or as Chair); their
> >comments and opinions are their own and not necessarily those of the
> >organizations that they generally represent.  This gives each individual the
> >right to express an individual opinion whether they be Board member, Chair
> >or any other related position.  Thus when I post it is as me, myself and I
> >and not as MD of this company, CEO of that, Board Member of this or that or
> >the other.
>
> This is one way to address the problem of multiple granularity you
> document. Her approach is a social atomization which insures the gods
> that opposition is divided before it can exist. This is a
> hierarchical vision of a society constrained by rules. Your
> decentralized vision based upon democratic agreement cannot work
> either unless you force everyone to join the GA and to vote. Today,
> the distributed network nature of our society and relations still
> needs a common reference (norms) and agreed visions (standards) but
> this is something we can delegate (automatic statistics) or chose
> (virtuality).
>
> The notion of "ordinary citizens" who are coordinated, and even of
> "individual domain name owners" who cooperate is obsolete. We are and
> form autonomous entities with their own individual or social
> governance and we function by subsidiarity and adhesion. What is of
> interest is that these approaches are very similar to the network
> architecture and political evolutions. What is new and interesting in
> this Debbie/Danny dialogue is the outdated bottom-up approach of an
> obsolete top-down proposition. Will something new result from it? why-not?
> jfc

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827