Re: [ga] GA - The NC's diatribe...

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

Phillip and all assembly members,

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>    Thomas,
> I do believe there is a degree of suicidal misinterpretation of the
> current NC recommendations.
>
>
> The chair and alt-chair of the GA have been invited by the Names
> Council to participate in discussions in ICANN evolution. That
> invitation stands.

  Good.  But this invitation is not broad enough Phillip.  Why only are
the Chair and the Alt-Chair invited and now any and all
stakeholders/users?

> Your perspectives are learned, reasoned and valued. Today you
> represent the dual role of today's GA.

  In your opinion perhaps.  But recently many member of the DNSO GA
have expressed that such may not be the case.  The recent debate before
the Rebid Motion was very reveling in this perhaps less than accurate
statement.  I fully recognize in your choice of language Phillip, that
you are attempting to prop up TR's persona as DNSO GA Chair
as he is under some considerable fire from several directions
presently...

>
>
>
> The NC has not said it wants to disenfranchise anyone.

  Ok this is good!  But prey tell the DNSO GA members why ONLY
the Chair and Alt Chair can directly communicate with the NC
and are the only stakeholders/users or DNSO GA members that
are invited or allowed to actively participate in the NC's discussion
on ICANN restructure?  This is an especially important question
now that the Rebid Motion has now passed by a whopping large
margin...  Please advise Phillip...

> It has redefined the role of the general assembly as being the meeting
> point for stakeholders. The GA envisaged is not intended to fulfil the
> existing dual role of today's GA.
>
>
> The argument should be - who are the stakeholders?

  That argument is moot and has been sense the signing of the MoU and
the
White Paper which are still extant and will be if a rebid by DOC/NTIA
is to be considered or otherwise done...

> Agree on them, and once they self-organise get them round the table
> and in the new DNSO and new GA.
>
>
> So, the question remains,  how can individual opinion not so
> self-organised be factored into decision making ?
> Is there something desirable about today's GA  and the respect it
> receives in trying to do this?
> Is there possibly a better means of factoring in individual opinion?
> The NC recommendation tries to address this.

  But it failed as you know in the opinion of the GA members which have
broadly expressed that failure now several times, Phillip...

>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>

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