Re: [ga] Joop's motions

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 12:36 13/05/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:

>Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground rules"
>for an individuals' constituency.  

First of all, it is not a re-worded motion, but a counter-proposed text for
the GA to vote on. You approached me with a voting text, that I did not
find representative of my motion and the published text was my response.
Debate over this text is possible, but if we don't get anywhere, you have
to stick with my original motion.

The ICANN Board (in accepting the NC's
>Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended to
>the need to establish ground rules.  The NC has been charged with this
>responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an
>unneeded redundancy.   Is my assessment incorrect?
>

I do not think that the referral by the Board back to the other
constituencies (the NC) of a task that is the responsibility of the Board
itself is sufficient. 
The Polling of the GA on this point is therefore not redundant.


>Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an
>application is **again** presented to the Board.  This is an explicit
>reference to the former idno petition. 

No. This is a simple  reference to the fact that *A* previous application
has been lodged.
You can leave it out, if you consider it an embarrassment for the Board to
be reminded of this fact by a GA resolution.
It is not material to the Polling question.

 Why should the GA be advocating on
>behalf of any one petitioning group?  Why are you expecting the GA to take
>sides? 

Using the word "again" is in itself not "advocating" or "taking sides".

 Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there are many
>members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency
>that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular. 

This is the result of a smear campaign that apparently has gotten to you too.

 Is it
>necessary to include this language in your revised motion?
>
I hope that by now you are aware that the Polling Formulations are not a
revised motion.


>Speaking as an Individual,

Danny, please, a little less speaking for yourself and a little more acting
as Chair will help the GA forward. 
This is the job for which you have been elected and this is what is
expected of you.



--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

--
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