Re: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

It is my humble opine that you people either speak up now or we shall face certain
goneness.

I shall continue in my limited roll as consensus builder and outreach expediter.
but without input Mr. Williams and Walsh and Younger and Meyer and Hernand and
Morfin and Dassa will not get their needed motion and umph through.

Please dotcommoners stop watching and start voting.  Right here and Right Now.

May the equinox find you prepared for cold and looking forward to shorter days,

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Bret and all assembly members,
>
> Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> > > I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging
> > > GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
> >
> > Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time, yesterday. It's
> > inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and comment to
> > pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view.
>
>   Agreed but Dannys rewording the motion was a very good idea.  I hope
> that Roeland is not offended in any way and the he is not characterized
> in Dannys rewording inappropriately.  I am sure Roeland will speak up
> if he feels that he has been.
>
>   What Danny rewording does and nicely so, is provide a very well
> done motion that we all can review, suggest rewording to, and eventually
> vote upon when complete.  That is a good and honest method of approach
> that benefits all of the assembly members.
>
> > For my part, I think we need
> > great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that all persons and
> > companies have a place within the constituency structure, ensuring that
> > their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am not convinced
> > that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the right answer.
>
>   Respectfully I disagree.  Lacking allowance from the ICANN BoD
> for new self forming constituencies as the ICANN Bylaws provides
> for, and the fact that the GA is a "Catch all" for those that don't
> fin into the existing constituencies, or may fit several constituencies,
> and therefor best fit into the GA.
>
> >
> >
> > The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies as necessary to
> > represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow the GA to serve
> > the function for which it was designed: a place for cross-constituency
> > dialogue and consensus building.
>
>   Agreed.  But as you know the ICANN BoD has not allowed for this to happen
> in any timely or reasonable manner.
>
> >
> >
> >       -- Bret
> >
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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