Re: [ga] Point of Order

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

> That is not correct.  William has not pointed out the specific ICANN
> ByLaw stipulation that would be violated by Jamie's motion.  In point of
> fact, there is no such stipulation, or ANY rules about what is
> legitimate deliberative material for the GA in the *ICANN ByLaws*.  If
> you, Mr Wader, wish to press the issue, then why don't you please
> produce the relevant section of the ICANN ByLaws.  Otherwise, there is
> no "point of order" as there are no established rules of order for the GA.

The bylaws are very clear on a couple of key points

a) that the purpose of the GA is to act as an open forum for participation
in the work of the DNSO.

b) that the purpose of the DNSO is to advise the board with respect to
policy issues relating to the Domain Name System.

The motion on the table has nothing to do with the work of the DNSO and in
fact, directly impacts two other supporting organizations that are being
conveniently ignored by proponents of the motion.

Two other things are quite clear from these two clauses in the bylaws

a) that the GA has no place in making recommendations that affect
stakeholders that are not part of the DNSO and,

b) that the GA has no place in tabling recommendations directly with the
DOC.

As such, I strongly believe that William's objection is entirely legitimate
and requires that the Chair provide guidance concerning the scope of the
motion as presently under discussion.

To answer the specific question, the citation from the bylaws are
specifically 4.VI-B.1.a and 4.VI-B.4.a...

-rwr

--
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