[ga] On Motions

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

My thoughts on "motions":

"The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons who want to be
members of that assembly.  At present, this includes "ex-officio" the
subscribers to the GA-lists, the participants to the DNSO Constituencies and
the participants to the Working Groups."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-working-procedures.html

At this time, we have:

a. 300 members listed in the GA Voting Registry
b. no listed membership records for the Intellectual Property Constituency
c. approximately 180 Registrars (each with more than one participant)
d. 165 members of the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
e. The Internet Service Providers' and Connectivity Providers' constituency
has 38 members
f. The gTLD Constituency will soon have 8 members
g. The business Constituency has 68 members currently listed
h. CcTLDs - 245
i. Additional former working group participants not in above - unknown

By my count, the composition of the General Assembly thereby includes over
1000 voices.  At this time I cannot even be sure that the DNSO Secretariat's
Announce List includes all of these members, but this matter will be
reviewed in due course.

What I am sure of is that when the GA last tackled a major concern (for
instance the issue of the .org charter), only 12 members cast an affirmative
or negative opinion.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01414.html

Had this been a response to a formally seconded motion, I am confident that
there are those who would have been loudly declaring **consensus of the
GA!!!** on the basis of the 7 votes that prevailed.  I choose to call it
what it is... a pathetic response from an organization that suffers from an
acute lack of participation.

It is this horrid lack of participation that invalidates all our efforts and
denies the GA its legitimacy.

Our goal is to have "substantive" discussion that involves a large number -
let me repeat - large number of our members followed by a motion and a
second to generate a ballot, which when accepted by the Chair will result in
a vote being taken.  I have yet to see either widespread substantive
discussion on an issue followed by a motion, or participation to a degree
that would validate putting our volunteer Secretariat through several hours
of work per ballot.  The Secretariat is not the employee of the GA.  I will
not allow her generosity of spirit to be abused by the frivolous motions
being put forth by members that could just as easily have chosen recourse to
a polling booth or to additional posts to make their collective sentiment
known.

I have noted these motions (among others):

I move that the GA form a WG to examine the finances of each of the
directors, and to recommend the removal of all directors with any conflicts
of interest.  **** (WGs are created by the NC, not the GA;  ICANN ByLaws
already provide for removal of directors; limited discussion on removal of
directors was started in a thread by Siegfried Langenbach)

I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of turning ICANN
into a for-profit corporation.  **** (WGs are created by the NC, not the GA;
there has been almost no discussion on this topic)

I move that the GA petition the NC for the immediate adoption of the GA as a
constituency.  **** (ICANN ByLaws grant no such powers to the NC; some
discussion of the topic of a GA Constituency in the Review  Working Group,
but none in the GA as of late)

I move that control of all DNSO mailing lists be immediately turned over to
a committee of volunteers, chaired by Kent Crispin.     ***** (the GA has no
authority over the NC mailing lists; committees should elect their own
Chairs)

I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for the immediate
suspension of the UDRP.  **** (any member of the GA has a right under the
Bylaws to petition the NC to consider a domain name policy issue... this
action requires no motion)

motion to the Chair to create a dedicated sub-ML to the end of discussing
and documenting the request of a WG to review and advise the management of
the Inclusive Name Space by the ICANN.  **** (NC is already considering a
petition to establish such a working group, and a GA topical mailing list on
this issue has been proposed and awaits near-term inauguration)

I move that the General Assembly set up a WIPO mailing list to discuss the
third interim report of the second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.  *****
(Such a GA list is now pending)

I move that the General Assembly set up a DNSO Review mailing list to
continue discussion on ways to improve the structure and functioning of the
DNSO  **** (Such a GA list is now pending)

I move that the General Assembly set up an alternative roots mailing list to
provide a specific forum for the subject in terms of what bearing if any
they have on ICANN  **** (Such a GA list is now pending)


I will quote LDG because I share this view:  "A motion is the step prior to
a vote and should not be brought
until there  has been enough discussion and background to warrant it."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01110.html  I will not
acknowledge any motion that has not had the benefit of widespread member
involvement and exhaustive debate.   We will soon have a number of new
mailing lists, each of which can result in a committee that can generate a
consensus-based report after a reasonable period of discussion on the part
of a reasonable amount of interested parties.  The  GA Chair will be
delighted to accept motions that may lead to the adoption of committee
reports that may then be put forward as a reflection of the consensus of the
GA.

First you bring in more members, then you work, then you motion, then you
vote.    If you have good recommendations, suggestions, you do not need a
motion to put them forth.














--
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