RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

I agree with Marilyn in that I also believe many participants want changes,
but that we should work within the organization to make the changes.  
Lets not go back to square one.
My guess is that if you take one step backwards, you would not
then take two steps forward, but rather another one backwards.
IMO the current resolution is one big step backwards.
I don't support it.

Paul Stahura


-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 8:24 AM
To: GA List
Cc: Thomas Roessler (E-mail); Alexander Svensson (E-mail)
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