Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns - The Tally now stands at 18 in favor and 8 not in favor

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

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  Yes we know your position on this motion.  It guess it was necessary
for some AT&T PR rhetorical comment to be added.  Perhaps
you are developing a filibuster technique Marilyn?  >;)
None the less the Tally now stands at 18 in favor 8 not in favor...

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 1)I do  not support the present draft resolution being voted on.
> 2) The GA has the opportunity to provide useful, coherent, organized input and comments on the White Papers. That should be the focus of the GA.
> 3) Alex's draft resolution is a better option than the present draft resolution.
>
> 1)I have several concerns about some other areas and believe they need addressing before a vote can be taken.
>
> *I question how engaging in this motion supports the purpose of the GA -- which is after all, a part of the DNSO of ICANN.
>
> *I certainly don't support it and question that it is "on topic" for the GA, as a couple of others have.
>
> * Special recruitment around a vote - I also question what seems to be an effort to recruit people to the voting registry just so they can vote on this issue.
>
> * On a separate, but related issue, I question how the voting registry is validated.  I am not comfortable with the integrity of the registry and would like to better understand whether effective mechanisms are in place to validate the "voters".  Do the constituencies regularly validate their membership? We have had a few changes. I suspect others have as well.
>
> On "stuffing the voting registry" or recruiting specifically to influence a vote:
>
> A couple of years ago, some folk, who were very concerned that "big business" would stuff the voting registries by having employees sign up.... raised this question in the public GA forum.  Some who were in Chile will recall that I went to the microphone in Chile specifically on this issue and responded that certainly my company wouldn't do that. And, in fact, that fear has been unfounded...  business  has comported themselves rather well on this front.  In fact, if anything, they haven't actually signed up for the GA actively.  There has certainly been no recruitment of people to sign up for the GA just for voting purposes by business. So, the fear that "capture" might occur in this manner, which existed a few years ago was, I thought, proven to be unfounded.
>
> Or so I thought.
>
> Now, to my  amazement, I see what might appear to be recruitment for a single vote.. ...
>
> Is there an effort to recruit people to the GA purely because of this vote? Are the folks signing up doing so because they intend to play an ongoing supportive role in ICANN and its evolution and reform?  Or merely to play in support of one outcome of a vote or another? If the latter, that  is, IF the purpose of recruitment is merely for this vote, this is not in the long term interests of the GA, or the DNSO, or of ICANN.
>
> And, no, the ends do not justify the means.
>
> One may not "love" the organization one is in; frankly, I believe that most ICANN participants do want changes in a variety of areas. Some we may agree on; others we may disagree. But, that means working within the organization to effect change. I see many on this list who seek to work responsibly to get changes.
>
> That should be the work focus of the GA.
>
> On Evolution and Reform: The GA can provide input, or it can chose to ignore a critical opportunity for input.
>
> There are now three white papers from the Evolution and Reform Committee on the table. Should the GA contribute? In my view, you bet!  As I said earlier tonight in a different post, the NC can benefit from your input on the questions asked in the white papers as well. I am certainly interested. The GA can provide input directly to the Committee as well.
>
> I agree that there is a difference between listening and agreement. I commit to listening to organized input.  I read the postings from many who I don't always agree with.  We may or may not agree.  I will read the organized input of the GA on these questions.
>
> Or the GA can chose to waste time and avoid meaningful opportunities for work by voting on a rebid.
>
> On the subject of Alexander's alternative resolution, I have concerns about some of the language, but it is more in the spirit of what I could support to be put forward as a reasonably drafted balanced approach to a resolution which reflects what I believe to be more of the broadly based GA membership.
>
> --
> 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