<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] proceedure for getting text approved for vote.
The problem here is that there seems to be no one in charge. As I
read it, the motion for which the text was originated by James Love
was touched up a bit by Joanna Lane and posted as Motion #1;
another text is in the hands of Alexander Svensson, evidently, and
is apparently to be voted on also without having run the gamut of
a poll, and a number of people have posted comments that this or
that motion ought to be changed to read " . . . whatever. . . .," which
posts, so far as I can see, have no practical effect because they are
never taken up by anyone to be used anywhere. This is typical of the
long term habit of GA -- lots of talk, but little organization. The person
who is officially supposed to be tracking this and informing people as
to what will or will or will not be taken up for a vote has instead been
attacking one of the proponents. No one seems willing to clarify whether
something "to be voted on" or "also on the ballot" means as a part of
the informal voting of those in the GA who have been active on the
subject (and, of course, anyone else who wanted to jump in), or the
formal vote to be passed on by the Chair to the DNSO Secretariat.
This chaos would easily be avoided if us folks would be more clear in
what we say, and if we identified things other than "what Jefsey said"
or "Eric's idea" and the like. Who has time to search out those posts?
Right now, I think that starting tomorrow, May 13, I can vote on
something, but I'm not exactly sure what it is, and the last version of
it (as an amendment suggestion by somebody) that I saw was so fraught
with grammatical errors that one could hardly dig out what was meant.
So I hope somebody updates and clarifies what's going on.
Bill Lovell
James Love wrote:
046a01c1f829$c5739b00$0b00a8c0@essential.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 Committ
eee 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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|