RE: [ga] Re: GA agenda??

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Folks, I'm a little confused about what the complaints are about.

Danny will make a report to the NC for the GA. I think that is both becoming
historically routine (which is good) and actually, I suspect that 15 minutes
is about what is needed for a report.  

I support that the GA, as we have known it from the first one I attended in
Berlin (missed Singapore), has and will continue to provide ample
opportunity to present comments, dialogue, etc. which can be turned into
resolutions.  I agree that it is hard to come to a resolution "on the spot",
since most of the work and participation has been developing online.  And
many may feel left out if new resolutions are taken up without online
dialogue. 

However, if you are instead complaining about not having "open mike" time, I
am not sure that the NC meeting is the appropriate forum to introduce floor
debate.  

Further, I remind all of the Board's Public Forum.  As I recall, that has
also historically, provided additional comment opportunity from individuals
or groups.

Regards, Marilyn Cade

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 10:49 AM
To: Danny Younger
Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
Subject: [ga] Re: GA agenda??


Danny,

Danny Younger wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> The timeslot was scheduled by the NC Chair.  As Chair of the NC, he has
the
> right to set up his own timetable for the NC meeting.  I am making a
> presentation at this meeting by request of the NC Chair.  You may
certainly
> ask the NC to set aside time for public comments in their session,
although
> historically they have made no such provisions.  In our own session there
> will be ample time to make our collective views known.

  Very well.  However it has been made very apparent to me that making
views known is often not enough.  We need resolutions to be generated
out of those sessions and approved by the DNSO GA list for participants
that may not attend in Stolkholm via GA member vote.  These resolutions
should than be sent to the NC and the ICANN BoD as the consensus
of the DSNO GA participants and thereby implemented as ICANN
policy.  I have serious doubts that this will or can occur, however.
As such the DNSO GA is without any real power within the DNSO
or even the larger ICANN itself.  The same can be said for the
still nonexistent @large.

  Given these facts, Danny, it seems fairly obvious to me and from
our members other inquiries, the stakeholders, participating or
not, to directly indicate and reflect that the ICANN BoD along
with the DNSO NC has not met it's basic mandate or is in
compliance with it's contracts with DOC (White Paper and MoU).
Given this to be the true situation, any policies currently assumed
by the ICANN BoD are in abeyance with their contractual
obligations and are therefore null and void until such time
the ICANN BoD and the NC become in compliance with their
contractual requirements.

  I hope that now I have made myself perfectly clear to you
regarding the agenda considerations and how they are increasingly
being viewed, as has been plainly evident for some time now,
with the vast majority of stakeholders regardless or their level
of participation, as that participation has been blocked, or otherwise
not made available to them.  This would of course include the
DNSO GA through it's questionable practices on the DNSO GA
ML and the administration there of...

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 9:57 AM
> To: Danny Younger
> Subject: GA agenda??
>
> Danny,
>
>  From http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010602.NCstockholm-agenda.html
> Item 2 is as follows:
> 2.Presentation by GA chair of GA work agenda Danny Younger (15 mins)
> I don't see this a very reasonable amount of time for the GA's agenda,
> and
> I also don't see that only the Chair's opinion is adequate to make this
> presentation based upon the discourse on the various DNSO GA
> Mailing lists of late...
>
> --
> 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

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@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
--
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