Re: [ga] Ballot question

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

Eric and all assembly members,

  Lets not forget that the ICANN BoD has and will again do after the
fact By-law changes to fit whatever particular desire that suite them...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Dear Mr. Svensson,
>
> Always good to see and weigh your point of view.
>
> In my mind the big stumbling block is the By-Laws;
>
> "Section 4. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
>
>     (a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO, and
> open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO. The
> participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge of and an interest
> in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and
> who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO,
> including work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft
> document preparation, and participation in research and drafting committees and
> working groups.
>
>     (b) The GA shall meet at least once a year, if possible in conjunction with
> regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. To the maximum extent practicable, all
> meetings should be available for online attendance as well as physical attendance.
>
>     (c) The costs of GA meetings shall be the responsibility of the DNSO, which may
> levy an equitable, cost-based fee on GA attendees to recoup those costs. There shall
> be no other fees required to participate in the GA.
>
>     (d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the
> NC and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those seats reserved
> for the DNSO."
>
> What we can accomplish here, if not actually succeed, is to get a flat position
> statement of unwillingness by the NC, BoD and Staff to give any authority to minority
> stakeholders.  Timing is essential as this should be brought forward as AL, ccTLD and
> IDNO seats are discussed.  I certanly do not expect these folks on boards and
> councils and in staff to give up the power and authority they have worked so hard for
> easily.  But will they give up enough to keep the angry masses in the GA placated and
> going along.  If not what possible claim can they have to bottoms up consensus?
>
> No matter how flawed the current system or the system advanced by this vote, it is
> the most bottoms up consensus and transparent body in ICANN and the Internet.
>
> The two elected chair positions are simple regardless of name; External Advocate and
> Internal Consensus building.  Both are full time and not necessarily conducive to
> each other when advocating or building.
>
> We are at a point where we can no longer afford to lose members by one after
> another.  If this does not fly and the GA remains with no impact then I suggest there
> will be mass departure and regrouping.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> 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