Re: [ga] Motion # 1

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

You can't suck and blow on this - either the motion is up for discussion
before it goes for a vote, or the motion has been called for a vote.

The way I read Joanna's request is that it is the latter. If its actually
the case that I misread her message and the motion actually *is* up for
discussion and amendment, then I would be happy to put some ideas forward.
If this isn't the case, then my original statement of (non)support stands.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: "GA List" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1


> To Ross and everyone else who has weighed in on this: we are now in the
> debate/discussion stage, and I don't see that there will be any rush to
> a vote.
> Having a "#1" implies that there might well be a "#2" and so on. Any of
> us is
> free either to propose a "#2," or suggest an amendment to the present #1,
> or whatever seems to be necessary. That's how this bit is supposed to
work.
>
> My own bent here, as soon as I get the time to do it, is to lay out a
> "Bill of
> Particulars" that would put more meat into Joanna's "whereas" clauses, so
> we'll see how that goes.  ICANN is not going away, and some concerted
> effort by all of us on this will show ICANN that neither are we.
>
> The object of all this work will be to generate, we hope, a single motion
> that everyone will agree is the one that ought to be taken to a vote. In
> the process of generating that motion, the actual merits will undoubtedly
> need to be bandied about, especially to include some of the excellent
> suggestions that have been made as to defining, up front, the actual
> purpose of the motion, but we might bear in mind that all we are doing
> at present is generating the best possible motion; we are not at present
> doing any voting on it.
>
> :-)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> >I am firmly against taking this motion to a vote.
> >
> >There has been zero consultation or discussion on the merits, or lack
> >thereof, of the proposition and as such cannot even remotely be taken as
a
> >representative question.
> >
> >While I am sympathetic to the need for immediate and decisive action,
> >sufficient consensus on the text of the motion does not yet exist to a
> >degree that warrants taking this to a vote.
> >
> >-rwr
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> >To: "GA List" <ga@dnso.org>; "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:02 PM
> >Subject: [ga] Motion # 1
> >
> >
> >>WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>
> >has
> >
> >>dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
> >>proposing even further changes.
> >>
> >>WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the
> >>
> >Internet
> >
> >>community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
> >>
> >>WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
Commerce
> >>(the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring,
and
> >>alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources,
while
> >>providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.
> >>
> >>WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
> >>
> >Organization
> >
> >>(the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper,
> >>
> >the
> >
> >>Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to
withdraw
> >>from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
> >>
> >>
> >>It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> >>
> >>The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of
> >>
> >Internet
> >
> >>Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US
Department
> >>
> >of
> >
> >>Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by
> >>
> >ICANN,
> >
> >>provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an
> >>international framework for DNS management. An open competition should
aim
> >>to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
> >>services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
> >>competition and freedom.
> >>
> >>Agree [  ]
> >>Disagree [  ]
> >>Abstain [  ]
> >>
> >>--
> >>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@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