Re: [ga] On Motions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all remaining assembly members,

babybows.com wrote:

> 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.

  Most of the reason of the lack of participation in the GA is due to the
arcane list rules that have been abused to the extent that varying views
during debate cannot be freely voiced on the DNSO GA list, that
the previous administration of the Chair and Co/alt-Chair routinely denied
many stakeholders form even subscribing to the DNSO GA list or
permanently banned a few that did try to participate.  These sorts
of historic events (See DNSO GA Archives for further information)
also lead to a exodus of a large number of than current DNSO GA
list participants.  SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP, also played a
huge role in during this period, and we today the DNSO GA
still suffer form these past events and present rules that have, and
continue to be abused, unchecked.

  Until or unless these issues that I mentioned are directly addressed
in a manner that provides for broader participation, the participation
activity of still remaining DNSA General Assembly members will
be negatively effected.

>
>
> 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)

  Seconded.

>
>
> 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)

  Yes there has been a huge amount of discussion on this topic on the
Domain Policy list (See relative archives).  However I second this motion
anyway as it is a good idea to open up this area for debate and discussion
again in this current time frame and on this forum or WG Forum, if such
a proposed forum is open to any and all that wish to participate.

>
>
> 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)

  Seconded.

>
>
> 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 oppose.

>
>
> 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)

  Agreed here.

>
>
> 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 oppose.  There only needs to be one WG for this...

>
>
> 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)

  Seconded.

>
>
> 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)

  Seconded.

>
>
> 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)

  Seconded.

>
>
> 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."

  How much is enough???

>
> 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.

  Anyone that knows anything about politics understands that your statement
above is more than a bit inaccurate and naive.

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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