Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Marilyn and all assembly members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> -snip -

> 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.

  Yes, well the GA members have been doing this very thing for over
two years not to little or no avail as impact on the ICANN BOD
and staff.  In fact they have basically been trying to kill the GA
from nearly it's very conception...  Hence the reason why Jamie's
Rebid motion is being considered much more seriously...

>
>
> 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@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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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