Re: [ga] Point of Order - Tally, in favor 3, not in favor 9

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

Ross and all assembly members,

  The chair has already stated that the motion can go forward.
The "Point of Order" seems to be personally and restrictively
motivated as Jamie, Sotiris, Eric, Roberto, myself, and several
others have pointed out...

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> The fact of the matter is that there is a reasoned point of order on the
> table. I would personally like to hear from our chair whether it is in order
> or whether the discussion on the motion can proceed.
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Duff" <andy@luddo.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:53 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Point of Order
>
> > On Wed 8 May, William X Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Calling for a rebid of the ICANN contract supercedes the grant of power
> > > allowed in the bylaws as it extends beyond the work of the DNSO into
> > > areas that also concern the PSO and ASO.
> >
> > Well perhaps Jamie should reword it to say that the functions of the DNSO
> > should be put up for rebid, though I personally think this is a spurious
> > distinction.
> >
> > The reality is that there's a growing consensus of opinion that a bit of
> > competition for ICANN (or the DNSO if you want to restrict it to that)
> would
> > do no harm at all; Jamie's proposed motion is designed to establish
> whether
> > such consensus exists. Efforts to cite "procedure" in order to prevent a
> > vote taking place are not surprisingly from those who do not support the
> > motion and who fear that such a motion may garner general support. Some
> > salient points:
> >
> > 1. If there is no consensus on Jamie's motion, it won't pass
> > 2. If Jamie's motion does pass and there is a rebid, I would hope that
> those
> > who support a version of the current ICANN structure were confident enough
> > that their own bid would prevail by virtue of it's suitability to the task
> > at hand.
> >
> > Finally, a further word on this issue of the increase in the GA voting
> > registry. The GA voting system is actually a prime example of why the
> > current ICANN structure can never work efficiently - anyone could get
> their
> > granny, cousins, sisters, aunts uncles to register and vote on a position
> if
> > they wanted to. That's the real issue - that ICANN's current structure is
> > horribly unaccountable and lends itself to capture and dominance by
> certain
> > interest groups - and that's why I continue to believe that a rethinking
> > from scratch (including the DoC inviting alternative bids) is required. I
> > think it's becoming clear that actually "not a lot" is what's required,
> and
> > that many of ICANN's problems stem from an over-elaborate and
> unaccountable
> > structure. The market has an uncanny knack of keeping things in check.
> >
> > andy duff
> >
> > --
> > 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@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