<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum
Todd,
The "writer" in this case was Jamie Love, although I
prefer to the label Proponent. (see Best Practices) Others contributed
amendments. Bill is correct - my contribution was simply to reformat the
amended text into "whereas" clauses, which the Proponent agreed
was an improvement. There is no disagreement here, but Jefsey was asking
the wrong person.
Regards,
Joanna
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 -----
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|