RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Jamie, if there is no evidence of recruitment just for this vote in any undue quantity, then I may stand corrected on that point. I think what your explanation is that many GA members hadn't bothered to register, and the dialogue has created new awareness about taking that step, thus they are registering.  Some others have been drawn to the GA because of various postings, is what you are saying?   If there is no problem of the nature I raised, then there may be a simple answer to that question.

I  note that my other concerns stand. 

Please don't lose sight of the reality that the GA has a chance to respond, just as do other groups, to the Evolution and Reform white papers.  



Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:james.love@cptech.org]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:28 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; GA List
Cc: Thomas Roessler (E-mail); Alexander Svensson (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns


Marilyn, what evidence do you or anyone else on this list have regarding
people stuffing the ballot box?   Can the DNSO staff post the names of *new*
persons who have been added to the list of voters, to see if there is even
one person who should not vote, or any evidence that anyone has done
anything wrong with regard to this ballot?  They should be able to do this.
As of yesterday, the DNSO General Assembly voting registry was  576 entries.
According to Alexander, it was 505 on May 5.  I am one of the new persons
registered to vote in the past weeks.  In our office of 25 people, we have 2
persons registered, and we have both been active in ICANN for a long time.
We have not done what Marilyn alludes to, and I don't know anyone who has.
What has happened in that some people who are members of this list,
including lurkers, and some people who are ICANN junkies like the list
members, have register to vote in the GA, which is their (and my) right.
The Slashdot post which TR has on his weblog, was a back page entry that
almost no one saw (it had a total of 6 comments).  I wish there had been big
publicity about the vote on Slashdot and other forums.  But in fact there
not been.    There have been discussions about the GA vote in places where
ICANN issues are often discussed, and since when is that a problem?    Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "GA List" <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler (E-mail)" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; "Alexander
Svensson (E-mail)" <Alexander@svensson.de>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:24 AM
Subject: [ga] other approaches and concerns


>
> 1)I do  not support the present draft resolution being voted on.
> 2) The GA has the opportunity to provide useful, coherent, organized input
and comments on the White Papers. That should be the focus of the GA.
> 3) Alex's draft resolution is a better option than the present draft
resolution.
>
> 1)I have several concerns about some other areas and believe they need
addressing before a vote can be taken.
>
> *I question how engaging in this motion supports the purpose of the GA --
which is after all, a part of the DNSO of ICANN.
>
> *I certainly don't support it and question that it is "on topic" for the
GA, as a couple of others have.
>
> * Special recruitment around a vote - I also question what seems to be an
effort to recruit people to the voting registry just so they can vote on
this issue.
>
> * On a separate, but related issue, I question how the voting registry is
validated.  I am not comfortable with the integrity of the registry and
would like to better understand whether effective mechanisms are in place to
validate the "voters".  Do the constituencies regularly validate their
membership? We have had a few changes. I suspect others have as well.
>
> On "stuffing the voting registry" or recruiting specifically to influence
a vote:
>
> A couple of years ago, some folk, who were very concerned that "big
business" would stuff the voting registries by having employees sign up....
raised this question in the public GA forum.  Some who were in Chile will
recall that I went to the microphone in Chile specifically on this issue and
responded that certainly my company wouldn't do that. And, in fact, that
fear has been unfounded...  business  has comported themselves rather well
on this front.  In fact, if anything, they haven't actually signed up for
the GA actively.  There has certainly been no recruitment of people to sign
up for the GA just for voting purposes by business. So, the fear that
"capture" might occur in this manner, which existed a few years ago was, I
thought, proven to be unfounded.
>
> Or so I thought.
>
> Now, to my  amazement, I see what might appear to be recruitment for a
single vote.. ...
>
> Is there an effort to recruit people to the GA purely because of this
vote? Are the folks signing up doing so because they intend to play an
ongoing supportive role in ICANN and its evolution and reform?  Or merely to
play in support of one outcome of a vote or another? If the latter, that
is, IF the purpose of recruitment is merely for this vote, this is not in
the long term interests of the GA, or the DNSO, or of ICANN.
>
> And, no, the ends do not justify the means.
>
> One may not "love" the organization one is in; frankly, I believe that
most ICANN participants do want changes in a variety of areas. Some we may
agree on; others we may disagree. But, that means working within the
organization to effect change. I see many on this list who seek to work
responsibly to get changes.
>
> That should be the work focus of the GA.
>
> On Evolution and Reform: The GA can provide input, or it can chose to
ignore a critical opportunity for input.
>
> There are now three white papers from the Evolution and Reform Committee
on the table. Should the GA contribute? In my view, you bet!  As I said
earlier tonight in a different post, the NC can benefit from your input on
the questions asked in the white papers as well. I am certainly interested.
The GA can provide input directly to the Committee as well.
>
> I agree that there is a difference between listening and agreement. I
commit to listening to organized input.  I read the postings from many who I
don't always agree with.  We may or may not agree.  I will read the
organized input of the GA on these questions.
>
> Or the GA can chose to waste time and avoid meaningful opportunities for
work by voting on a rebid.
>
> On the subject of Alexander's alternative resolution, I have concerns
about some of the language, but it is more in the spirit of what I could
support to be put forward as a reasonably drafted balanced approach to a
resolution which reflects what I believe to be more of the broadly based GA
membership.
>
>
>
> --
> 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