[ga] proceedure for getting text approved for vote.

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

This is my understanding of the proceedure for getting text approved for a
vote.  Anyone can submit any text they want, and if they have 10 supporters,
the text is included on the ballot.

1.    Joanna has circulated a particular text that has included the input
from a number of different persons, and attempted to accomondate a number of
different concerns.   I support this text being included on the ballot, as
have several others.

2.  Alexander is circulating a second text for the ballot, which is designed
to be somewhat critical of ICANN, but   "more moderate."  I would also
support this being included on the ballot, so that this veiwpoint is
represented.

3.  It might be a good idea also to include a pro-ICANN/staff/BOD text, as a
third option, such as "The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN
board of directors to address the reform process, and agrees with the
general direction of the Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."  I would
like to see this also on the ballot, even though I would vote against it.
This is just a suggestion.

Jamie



----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>; "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Cc: "GA List" <ga@dnso.org>; "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1


> Karl - you are right about the conflict of interest for you here, but my
> response to Joanna is that it also may not be fair or appropriate for
anyone
> at this time to take only one version of the proposed text and claim it is
> ***the*** motion and start a straw-poll on it to get its veracity when
> people are not set on the language of the motion yet.
>
> This is one of the problems with this and a number of the other lists that
I
> have spent time with, that it is essentially many fragmented voices and
this
> makes the value of such a 'niceified' request to be almost worthless at
best
> from what is essentially a disharmonized chorus, IMHO.
>
> What needs to happen is that this WG needs to come to specific terms with
> what it is trying to do... and state somewhere
>
>     1)    The intent of the motion needs to be defined in very specific
> terms (up at 200,000 feet); and
>
>     2)    The process of how the Motion will be propagated and to whom
needs
> to be worked out, because what you say in the motion is specific to whom
we
> send it to. (this is also at 200,000); and
>
>     3)    Itemize in the Motion the specific complaints that need to be
> addressed and why (this is the 100,000 foot view); and
>     4)    And then submit a formal motion, petitioning for these changes.
> (and finally this is the ground zero of  the process)
>
> No one sends anyone a letter "asking" for changes, they send petitions
that
> mandate something demonstrable. But they also have organizational backing
> on the matter and what is here now is several different groups still
> lobbying for language in the matter.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>
> To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> Cc: "GA List" <ga@dnso.org>; "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1
>
>
> > On Thu, 9 May 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > I'm a bit confused - are these 10 names to simply get this motion onto
the
> > table so that it may be discussed and ultimately (perhaps) voted upon?
Or
> > is this a vote on the motion itself?
> >
> > I'm all for the former (i.e. putting it onto the table for discussion)
and
> > if that's what we're doing then count me as a "yes".
> >
> > But if we're talking about the merits of the motion itself - I'm not
ready
> > to say yes or no.  (In fact, because of my role within ICANN, I'll
> > probably abstain.)
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> > > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
(ICANN)
> has
> > > dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
> > > proposing even further changes.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the
> Internet
> > > community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
> Commerce
> > > (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring,
> and
> > > alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources,
> while
> > > providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
> Organization
> > > (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White
Paper,
> the
> > > Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to
> withdraw
> > > from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
> > >
> > >
> > > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> > >
> > > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of
> Internet
> > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US
> Department of
> > > Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by
> ICANN,
> > > provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > > international framework for DNS management. An open competition should
> aim
> > > to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
> > > services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
> > > competition and freedom.
> > >
> > > Agree [  ]
> > > Disagree [  ]
> > > Abstain [  ]
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
>


--
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