Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Bill - someone - the person introducing a motion or the person running the vote needs to own the text of the motion. This means that the submitter or manager of the group needs to take responsibility for what is being voted on and that means taking into account the edit therein.

 

Todd Glassey

 

----- Original Message -----

From: William S. Lovell

To: jefsey

Cc: ga@dnso.org

Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:15 PM

Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

jefsey wrote:

5.1.0.14.0.20020510133959.02d63960@mail.club-internet.fr" type="cite">Dear Joanna,
I do not support that text as such as not enough worked and IMHO not properly addressed not detailed yet. I have introduced many propositions to add to that motion you did not take into account.

I know that this is difficult, but since you took the role of writer, I suggest you now proceed on a step by step basis.

Jefsey:

I don't think Joanna "took the role of writer."  What she did was put
James Love's "motion" into the form of a "#1" and post it as such. This
poor lady can't do everything for us!  I suggest that those who want
to work on #1, either by amendment or by posting a new "#2" or
whatever, simply do so and label what you are doing so that Joanna
would have half a chance of tracking all that for us as well. (I am
myself much in favor of there being a preamble, even before the usual
whereas clauses, that defines the purpose of the motion as you note
below.)

Bill

5.1.0.14.0.20020510133959.02d63960@mail.club-internet.fr" type="cite">

1. what is the purpose of the motion?
    - disruptive
    - advisory
    - force to a dialog
    - obtain missing responses
    - "suicide"

2. to who should it be addressed to?
    - formally
      - to the BoD
      - to the NC
      - to the DoC
      - to the world
      - to the outerspace
    - actually
      - to the DoC to obtain a decision
      - to the BoD to make them moving
      - to the reform committee as a warning
      - to the GAC members to create a problem they will have to solve
      - to the Congress
      - to the Press
      - to our own ego

3. what is our real reason?
    - that we are unhappy with the ICANN principle
    - that we see that the current ICANN structure will never work
    - that we have real concerns about the DNS stability
    - that we have concern for the world's economy structure under the present DNS managment

4. what is our real target?
    - to support external propositions
    - to develop a GA proposition
    - to permit a real debate on real element and not only on Stuart's emotions
    - to protect national interests and security
    - to protect business interests

5. what are the elements missing in the current ICANN mission?
    I listed a few of them which should be listed in whereas, but many others may be indentified and then filtered to obtain a realistic and easy to understand list for press and Congress

The question is not we will commit suicide or not, the question is the time we will spend on it to be of use. Eben if it is only for the records: it will help in the future to disqualify those who did not tried to save the Internet from ICANN's bureaucracy.

Until that work is done, I reseve my support to this motion.
jfc


On 05:38 10/05/02, Joanna Lane said:

> > 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



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02