Re: [ga] Point of Order

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

The fact of the matter is that there is a reasoned point of order on the
table. I would personally like to hear from our chair whether it is in order
or whether the discussion on the motion can proceed.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Duff" <andy@luddo.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:53 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Point of Order


> On Wed 8 May, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > Calling for a rebid of the ICANN contract supercedes the grant of power
> > allowed in the bylaws as it extends beyond the work of the DNSO into
> > areas that also concern the PSO and ASO.
>
> Well perhaps Jamie should reword it to say that the functions of the DNSO
> should be put up for rebid, though I personally think this is a spurious
> distinction.
>
> The reality is that there's a growing consensus of opinion that a bit of
> competition for ICANN (or the DNSO if you want to restrict it to that)
would
> do no harm at all; Jamie's proposed motion is designed to establish
whether
> such consensus exists. Efforts to cite "procedure" in order to prevent a
> vote taking place are not surprisingly from those who do not support the
> motion and who fear that such a motion may garner general support. Some
> salient points:
>
> 1. If there is no consensus on Jamie's motion, it won't pass
> 2. If Jamie's motion does pass and there is a rebid, I would hope that
those
> who support a version of the current ICANN structure were confident enough
> that their own bid would prevail by virtue of it's suitability to the task
> at hand.
>
> Finally, a further word on this issue of the increase in the GA voting
> registry. The GA voting system is actually a prime example of why the
> current ICANN structure can never work efficiently - anyone could get
their
> granny, cousins, sisters, aunts uncles to register and vote on a position
if
> they wanted to. That's the real issue - that ICANN's current structure is
> horribly unaccountable and lends itself to capture and dominance by
certain
> interest groups - and that's why I continue to believe that a rethinking
> from scratch (including the DoC inviting alternative bids) is required. I
> think it's becoming clear that actually "not a lot" is what's required,
and
> that many of ICANN's problems stem from an over-elaborate and
unaccountable
> structure. The market has an uncanny knack of keeping things in check.
>
> andy duff
>
> --
> 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-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html