RE: [ga] Point of Order

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org] 
|> On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
|> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 3:26 AM
|> To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos
|> Cc: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order
|> 
<snip> 
|> The bylaws are very clear on a couple of key points
|> 
|> a) that the purpose of the GA is to act as an open forum for
participation
|> in the work of the DNSO.
|> 
|> b) that the purpose of the DNSO is to advise the board with respect
to
|> policy issues relating to the Domain Name System.
|> 
|> The motion on the table has nothing to do with the work of the DNSO
and in
|> fact, directly impacts two other supporting organizations that are
being
|> conveniently ignored by proponents of the motion.
|> 
|> Two other things are quite clear from these two clauses in the bylaws
|> 
|> a) that the GA has no place in making recommendations that affect
|> stakeholders that are not part of the DNSO and,
|> 
|> b) that the GA has no place in tabling recommendations directly with
the
|> DOC.
|> 
|> As such, I strongly believe that William's objection is entirely
legitimate
|> and requires that the Chair provide guidance concerning the scope of
the
|> motion as presently under discussion.
|> 
|> To answer the specific question, the citation from the bylaws are
|> specifically 4.VI-B.1.a and 4.VI-B.4.a...

I too feel the motion is outside of the GA scope and it may in fact be
very damaging if adopted as a formal GA proposal.  As William has
mentioned, if worked as a document not officially recognised by the GA
but supported by individual GA members, it would be far more effective
and relevent.

Whilst I support the major points of the motion text, I really do not
consider it an appropriate motion for an internal organ of ICANN with
limited scope to put forward as a body.  I feel to do so would be to
play into the political manipulations of others who have no regard for
the GA and what is hoped to be accomplished.

It would be my contention, such a statement would have far more impact
and be more effective if it was generated outside of the GA, with the
support of individuals from the GA, other individuals and organisations
from without the ICANN organisation.  It is after all dealing with
issues revolving around direct negotiotion and the possibility of
corruption as opposed to open transparent negotiotions and competition.
As such the issue should be of interest to a wider audience than the GA
which as a body, is hamstrung on such issues by the scope of its mandate
and the position it is in with regards to the key players involved in
the issue.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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