Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

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

Karl and all assembly members,

  Thank you Karl for these very wise words in support of the Rebid
Motion or the need for the DNSO GA to express it's position
on reform of ICANN.

  The Tally is now at 18 in favor of a ballot for the rebid, and
6 against...  Let us move forward and get a ballot on this
motion so the GA members can officially express their
collective and measured consensus...

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> I must say that I am rather amazed at all of the bits and pixels being
> burned even asking whether the GA should hold a vote/straw-poll on the
> question of whether the GA should encourage (or not) the US DoC to
> consider other candidates when deciding what to do when the various MoU's,
> CRADAs, purchase orders and such it has with ICANN come up for renewal,
> replacement, or extension later this year.
>
> (Please note that I used neither the word "rebid" nor "contract" as those
> are not quite correct, and when talking to the USG one has to be very
> precise about what one means.)
>
> Several points:
>
> First is that the Names Council has rendered its opinion on the "reform"
> plan.  The GA has no less a right to do the same; there is nothing that
> says that the GA may not express its sense on a matter.  I would suggest
> that the GA should not bind itself to a Procrustean bed of its own making.
>
> It is perfectly appropriate, and indeed it is right and proper, for the GA
> to stand up and make its opinion known.
>
> Second, there is no other defined place in ICANN which is open to the
> degree that the GA is open; the at-large having been dispatched in Ghana.
>
> This makes the opinion of the GA all that more important.
>
> Third, there are two issues: The question of the disposition of the
> MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is one issue.  The other is the Lynn "plan".  Let
> me deal with the latter first.  I was quoted in Salon as saying something
> to the effect that the best use of that plan is as kindling to start a
> fire.  I hold to the opinion that the Lynn plan is a blend of unworkable,
> unaccountable, and naive financial and business practices; a closed system
> of regulation of public matters without public participation; and a
> roadmap to personal aggrandizement by some of those pushing the plan.
>
> But the lack of viability and wisdom of the Lynn plan is not the question
> that Jamie asked.
>
> The question he asked was for the GA to express its opinion on the matter
> of the disposition by the US of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder later this
> year.  My feeling is that is more than merely a valid issue, that it is an
> issue of importantance.
>
> Fourth, the question of the disposition of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is
> not a monolithic yes/no question.  That package of legal arrangements
> contains many distinct obligations and duties.  These can be separated and
> treated individually.  Let me illustrate by observing that "the IANA
> function" (which ICANN performs via the purchase order) could, and in the
> opinion of many, ought to be spun-out to a distinct entity while leaving
> other functions with ICANN.
>
> (In case anyone is interested, I, as have several others, suggested that
> ICANN be evolved into several distinct entities, each with limited duties
> and thus limited powers -- http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm )
>
> Fifth, even those of us like me - California-centric Americans ;-) -
> realize that that whatever is done with these legal agreements, it
> represents yet another action of US hegemony over this bundle of Internet
> issues.  It seems to me that the question of how the US might proceed in
> actually accomplishing the disposition of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is a
> forum in which one can raise and face the question of how to devolve this
> US control into something more acceptable to the sensitivities of the
> majority of the worlds people who don't live in the US without allowing
> ICANN, or whatever it "evolves" into, to become a body without
> accountability and without oversight.
>
> So my thought is this: The GA ought to be what its name says it is - an
> assembly open to "general" matters, in other words, any matter.  It should
> not feel constrained by artifical subject matter ropes that have not
> constrained its sister body the Names Council.
>
> If a member of the GA places a question, and that question obtains
> cognizable visibility as a matter of interest and concern, then the GA
> ought to proceed with all deliberate speed to discuss the matter *and* to
> obtain the sense of the membership on that question that was put forth.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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