Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

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

Gary and all assembly members,

  I have to agree with Gary here.  Motion 2 was added by Alexander
purposefully to confuse and dissuade the real issue at hand.  That being

said should ICANN continue in the minds of the GA members or should
the ICANN Contracts be rebid.  It is clear that a majority of
those that voted believe that the present administration is
NOT satisfactory to the GA as a body and should be rebid
 Not a  surprising result.

 It is also clear from Motion 2 that there are two
acceptable approaches that the GA members are willing
to consider to address the reform of ICANN in it's present
form or at least under the present administration and
process or processes underway...

  Now, we as GA members can beat these results to death
as to evaluating them, or we can take action as DNSO
body that has meaning and substance in a two pronged
approach.  It is up to each of us and the GA as a
body of the DNSO and ICANN....

  So if I may be so bold I will make some basic suggestions.

1.) Those that voted for the rebid motion or motion #1
AND Motion #2 can work both sides of the proverbial
street by looking for ways and means of building and
proposing to the GA and other constituency members
as well as the other SO's a potential proposal for
such a platform by which a Rebid can or would be
presented to DOC/NTIA AND ALSO ways in which
the present ICANN structure and processes can be
improved that meet the criterion for motion #2

2.)  Those that voted and/or support one motion or the other
can concentrate their efforts in the direction of either
the Rebid potential proposals in conjunction with those
the voted in favor of both motions OR for those that
voted for motion #2 and Not Motion #1 can work
to find ways and means by which the existing structure
or changes in that structure can be improved or
restructured to improve ICANN as it applies to
the MoU and the White Paper.

3.) Those that did not vote in favor of either Motion #1 or
Motion #2 or obtained, can remain wallflowers, obstructers
and/or general nuisances OR consider getting off the fence and
get into doing some work with either my previous
two suggestions...

4.) The ICANN BoD, Staff and other constituencies or SO's
can take this vote seriously as is required in the ICANN
Bylaws, or they can just ignore it all together.  If the latter,
than my first 3 suggestions are worthless and pointless.
If the former, than there is at least a chance that serious
and expedient improvement or replacement can be
achieved...

  For the record, I will be trying to work in accordance
with my #1 suggestion even though I did not vote in favor
of Motion #2...

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 01:20 PM 24/05/02 +1000, Dassa wrote:
>
> >...The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises
> >  the question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.
>
> Not so much as it raises the question of why adding
> Motion 2, or 3 or 4, was appropriate. -g
>
> --
> 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


--
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