Re: [ga] Proposal: GA survey vote on Committee draft

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

Alex and all assembly members,

  I prefer Jamies motion as it stands and to be voted upon as is.
This would send a definite message one way or another to the
ICANN BoD and staff.  So far 12 GA members are in favor
of Jamies motion AS IS and have seconded it as such...

  Note:  I personally take exception to your characterization of
Jamies motion as "Radical"...

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> At 01.05.2002 23:56, James Love wrote:
> >2.  Could we have a vote on whether or not we would like the US Department
> >of Commerce to rebid the ICANN contract, on the grounds that ICANN is
> >abandoning the original promise regarding at large elections and bottom up
> >consensus decision making, with all stakeholders included?
>
> Dear all,
>
> here is a proposal what we could do:
> In about a month, the Reform Committee will present its
> reform proposal (my personal guess is that it will be
> a slightly amended version of Stuart Lynn's proposal).
> What we could do is to take the points in the Committee
> proposals and take a vote on them, including alternatives,
> in an open vote.
>
> One example:
>  ------------------------------------------------------
>  Question 3:
>  The Committee proposes to derive additional funding
>  by a small increase (around $ 0.20) of registrar fees.
>  See Commitee proposal, part XI.
>  [ ] I agree with increasing the funding.
>  [ ] I don't agree with increasing the funding.
>  [ ] I agree with the source of funding.
>  [ ] I prefer additional governmental funding.
>  [ ] I prefer additional funding from stakeholders.
>  ------------------------------------------------------
>
> We could add some of the more radical proposals like
> rebidding the contract by the United States, transfer
> to an international treaty organisation etc. as a
> question at the start or the end of the survey (which
> should, for practical reasons, not be longer than ten
> questions, I think.)
>
> Rationale:
> First of all, if the GA holds a vote before the Committee
> presents its proposal, we cannot react to the final draft
> and it is easy to say that this draft already reflects
> the concerns which have been raised. If we agree or don't
> agree with the final draft, it's harder to ignore it.
>
> Secondly, I think an open vote is more persuading and
> actually more useful than a secret vote in this case.
> The questions are interconnected, so it is helpful e.g.
> to see what kind of mission people want if they don't
> want to increase the budget etc. etc.
>
> I believe this is the way we can deliver input which is
> (a) to the point and (b) not easy to ignore.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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