ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I agree with Marilyn & disagree with the vote as presented to us, all this is obstruction of our ongoing work.
 
If anyone is sincere enough, then first we should have a series of discussions and second the recommended ballot should have first included couple well thought alternatives, well thought implementation plan, management feasibility study, planned funding plan, action items, solutions, management structure & background qualification and so forth in order to justify why that any new body will be better than ICANN, more qualified or can be up to the global challenges.
 
Further, the timeline posted is not reasonable at all and seems as bad as the vote ballot itself.
 
Maybe many of you don't agree with ICANN policy or strategy, maybe we have grievances, some of us ccTLD managers have problems with ICANN's decisions, but no one on the GA so far have even offered a logical ICANN alternative or even suggested a qualified body to take on the task from ICANN without disturbing our DNS operations.
 
It is always very easy to blame others and start red herrings to obstruct advancements, but it is very hard to recommend and deliver suitable alternatives.
Best Regards,
 
Asaad Alnajjar
CEO Millennium Inc.
Executive Director AINC (Arabic Internet Names Consortium)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I disagree with the vote and think this a diversion from doing useful work. Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message-----
From: John Palmer [mailto:jp@ADNS.NET]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:54 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Ok Tom - thats 9 - Whats the magic number?
----- Original Message -----
From: jefsey
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I second all this. I suggest that the icannatlarge.com presents this motion to its members and they register on the GA to participate to such a vote. May be a good occasion to have the GA list taking overt the ALSC list to be closed? This a real occasion if everyone shares in it. Like for Plan B.
jfc

On 02:14 03/05/02, Joanna Lane said:

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE  BELOW.

Mr. James Love, a member in good standing  of the DNSO's General Assembly, has made a call for action, specifically stating:

 "I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the services now provided by ICANN. The rationale for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet community. The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet resources.

The vote should be taken within 10 days."

Seconds: John Palmer, Danny Younger.

Members who have indicated their agreement with taking a Vote:-
  1. James Love (Proponent)
  2. John Palmer (Second)
  3. Danny Younger (Second)
  4. Jeanette Hoffman
  5. Joanna Lane
  6. Sotiris Sotiropoulos
  7. Karl Auerbach
  8. .
  9. .
 
Members who have indicated their disagreement with taking a Vote:-


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>