Re: [ga] Procedure. - DNSO General Assembly's Vote on Rebid Motion.

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

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  Darryl is of course obviously confused.  It also seems that you are
confused as well Marilyn.  That's unfortunate, but not all that surprising.
It is also not all that surprising that you will not be supporting Jamie's
motion as you have now stated that at least three times on this
ML that I am aware of.

  ICANN is only ONE recipient.  DOC/NTIA is yet another, and
really the only one that counts.  As you should know the ICANN
Contracts come up for review in Sept. 2002.  Hence the importance
of this vote by the GA to send a message as to where the GA,
or most of the DNSO participants stand on the ICANN BOD
and staff's performance as a DNSO body with respect to the
White Paper and MoU...

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I will not be able to support the first motion because this is not the right approach for the GA of the DNSO. There are many reasons, including the points made by Darryl.  And, in addition, this  motion is very US centric in its approach to redress-- which is exceedingly ironic.
>
> My personal view is that the GA has been seriously diverted from providing comments on the White Papers.
>
> However, leaving that aside, the second motion is much more appropriate in its focus.  While I have some problems with some of its phrases, it is focused toward providing comments toward the right "recipient" -- ICANN.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:17 PM
> To: 'Jeff Williams'
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org]
> |> On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
> |> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:18 AM
> |> To: dassa@dhs.org
> |> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.
>
> |>   The DNSO GA is supposed to advise the ICANN BoD on issues
> |> that relate to DNS or the relationship that the DNSO has with
> |> stakeholders as it pertains to stakeholder/user interests.  Hence
> |> it is fitting, proper as well as required for the GA to take such
> |> a vote on a rebid situation if the GA members believe that such
> |> a motion or resolution is necessary and/or desired so as to
> |> inform the ICANN BoD and staff adequately...
>
> I don't normally respond to Jeff Williams posts but as this is topical I
> will for this instance.
>
> The statement above highlights the problems I have with the first
> motion.  The motion does not and is not intended to inform the ICANN
> Board or staff as to anything.  It is directed at an external body and
> bypasses the internal processes.
>
> As such I believe it is out of order for this Assembly and can not
> support it.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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@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