<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum
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
>>>
|