Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

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

Todd and all assembly members,

  Todd, first let me tell you again your date for this post is 2 yrs old.  >;)
I think you need to again reset your Date/time on your PC.

  So where do we go from here?  Well I made some suggestions already
as have a number, although few, have also done.

  I suggested a two Pronged approach...

  That basically being that in that both motions passed with wide
margins, it is clear that ICANN's course in the DNSO GA
which is a fairly good broad barometer for how most stakeholders/Users
seem to feel, is not the direction that is needed.  It also seems
that congress and a number of other EU and Asian countries
are also very dissatisfied with the present ICANN administration's
stuartship, pardon the pun...  >;)  Hence ICANN must become
more of what the White Paper and MoU outlined in the beginning
in '98.  That can be accomplished with the two pronged approach
IOHO[INEGroup].  If the DOC/NTIA and Congress feel or
believe that the ICANN contracts (White Paper and MoU )
need or should be rebid, than planning from a host of potential
"Bidders" might work together to come up with a meaningful
proposal or proposals for such a bid..   At the same time however,
with Motion #2 we as stakeholders/users must insist consistently,
that draconian changes in the ICANN structure must include
direct dtakeholder/user participation and vote on issue's that
directly effect them for now and especially in the future.  This
will need to be done fairly quickly now, which makes addressing
Motion #2 approaches very difficult, but doable in proposal
methods and the creation of an At-Large in short order.  But
from Andy MM's recent report from the ICANN "Retreat"
this Motion seems to be rather moot unless Andy's report
was grossly inaccurate in several key areas, or the ICANN
staff in particular is turned around by the proposals that
we as the GA along with all other SO's and constituencies
within the DNSO can coordinate better, especially online
via WG's and cross constituency communications via
those forums without restriction.  I think this will mean
that the GA at least will need to lift or remove the
5 post limit...

todd glassey wrote:

> I guess the question is "where do we go from here"...
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 5:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)
>
> > Todd and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Great!  Glad you do suppport what I stated below.
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > > Cc: "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 1:35 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)
> > >
> > > > Todd and all assembly members,
> > > >
> > > > todd glassey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The motion process was flawed though and neither one should have
> been
> > > > > advanced. They are mutually exclusive of each other so any positive
> vote
> > > for
> > > > > one extinguishes the other.
> > > >
> > > >   I disagree in part here.  Both motions in many ways complimented
> each
> > > other
> > > > to one degree of another.  How there were presented for a vote by the
> > > > GA members was certainly questionable and confusing purposefully
> > > > IMHO however...
> > > >
> > > > > That is why this voting process is flawed,
> > > > > because the boilerplate and process of the election did not stop to
> > > mutually
> > > > > exclusive motions from passing and thus causing a dilemma, I move to
> > > declare
> > > > > this vote null and void and  further move to suspend all future
> votes in
> > > > > which this situation is allowed to occur.
> > > >
> > > >   No the voting process is not fatally flawed.  It does need some
> > > > fine tuning.  But any motions that are put forth should be made
> > > > available for a vote if at least 2 members second such motions.
> > > > Thomas required 10 seconds, which of course was silly.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally I think this means that the voting regulations and
> process
> > > need
> > > > > to be changed, and to that end I would move the GA to commission a
> > > Election
> > > > > Process and Rules WG immediately to resolve this dilemma, so we can
> get
> > > on
> > > > > with the democratic management of the DNSO.
> > > >
> > > >   A WG would be a good idea to FINE TUNE ONLY the voting
> > > > rules, yes...
> > >
> > > OK that works with me. I support that.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>
> > > > > To: <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>; <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> > > > > Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:29 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >There are truths that are not merely mathematical. There are lies
> > > that
> > > > > > >are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are some facts (whether they are matematical or not, I don't
> > > know,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > AFAIK they are truths):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a. both motions passed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > b. motion #2 gathered wider consensus than motion #1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Political interpretation of the value of these facts varies with
> the
> > > > > opinion
> > > > > > of the beholder, but whatever attempt to deny (or hide) the facts
> is
> > > > > insult
> > > > > > to the GA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Roberto
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> http://mobile.msn.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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
> >
> >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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