<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] A motion for the GA
I would second such a motion, and so do.
Wawa
--- Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Roberto,
>
> O.K. let's discuss the form of a joint motion in Yokohama. You have
> professed
> also to be in favour of a constituency for individuals (Domain Name
> holders,
> that is) , and so have many others so I'm sure we can come up with a
> joint-
> or broad-platform text. What I'm looking for in the first instance
> is a GA
> vote on the *principle* of adding such a constituency.
> Not for a detailed consensus proposal to be submitted to the NC. (the
> NC's response
> is not crucial anyway)
> To finally see the numbers in the GA for the *principle* sends
> already a powerful
> message to the ICANN Board.
> Remember, it is not the GA or even the NC (which is the other/ rival
> constituencies)
> that has to decide about the recognition and admission to the NC of a
> new constituency.
>
> It's only the ICANN Board.
>
> Could you second a motion like this:
>
> "I move that this General Assembly of DNSO stakeholders send the
> following
> resolution to the ICANN Board:
>
> The GA of the DNSO is not convinced that the currently approved
> constituencies
> of the DNSO adequately represent all stakeholders in the DNSO.
> We are therefore in principle in favour of the addition of another
> constituency,
> a constituency of Individual Domain Name Holders, to the DNSO and we
> request
> the Board to seriously consider the recognition in principle of such
> a constituency,
> so that this constituency can then complete its self-organization in
> accordance
> with this recognition.
> In view of this same Assembly's resolution to request the Board to
> put the issue
> on it's agenda in Santiago, we would like to request the Board to
> place the
> issue on the agenda of its open meeting in Yokohama.
>
> Such a message could be sent via the NC or directly.
>
> Any other seconds? Would you second this, Roberto?
>
> --Joop--
>
> >
> >What is wrong with my proposal to discuss the issue in Yokohama,
> where
> >there's a specific point on the agenda, maybe take a consensus poll
> at
> >the GA, and trim the proposal on the list to put it down in its
> >definitive forn to NC?
> >
> Nothing really. Except that this is not really an issue for the NC.
> Unless you take the position that *everything* produced by he GA must
> be vetted
> by the Names Council, before the Board is allowed to see it.
> Personally, I am not of that view.
>
> >About the discussion on this list, I confess I did not see much
> except
> >the exchange of arguments (and ad nominem) on the IDNO as the one
> and
> >only representative proposal for the Individual DN Holders
> Constituency,
> > but no effort whatsoever to broaden the consensus, to try to modify
> the
> > original proposal to compromise on different positions, in one
> word, to
> > progress.
>
> That is true. We have not heard proposals for modification of the
> IDNO petition,
> only pro- and contra arguments.
> Mind you, that is how it should be. A constituency should be allowed
> to define
> itself. That definition can be accepted or rejected by the Board. If
> it is rejected,
> the Board should give proper reasons and indicate what changes it
> would wish
> to see, before it would recognize the constituency as representative
> of a genuine
> stakeholder interest.
>
>
> >Without effort of this type, the only possible vote is pro or
> against
> >Joop.
>
> Why? Because shooting at the messenger makes the messenger into the
> mesage?
>
> While this can be of some interest to a short number of
> >personalities in this list, it is absolutely useless to make the
> cause
> >of the Individual DN Holders progress, because whatever the result
> of
> >the vote in the GA it is obvious to me that the proposal will not
> pass
> >the NC.
>
> See my above point on the relevance of the NC.
>
> And this not because the NC are bad guys, but because the
> >proposal of IDNO as is (or was) is clearly not a consensus proposal.
> >
>
> Only the vote will determine that. Not the unsubstantiated
> objections of a
> few persistent and prolific posters.
> This is the problem of all discussion lists. That is why voting is so
> important.
>
> >The issue is then: how to move towards a consensus proposal? Either
> we
> >find out a way to do it, or we can forget about the whole issue.
> >
>
> Be patient, Roberto. Forgetting about "the whole issue" would be a
> mistake that
> would continue to haunt the DNSO.
> That said, there is now a motion on the table that can be transformed
> into something
> that can surely win wide acceptance and give you the consensus you
> think you
> need.
> Personally I have more than once expressed the opinion that
> non-acceptance by
> groups of stakeholders that have interests opposing those of
> Individual DN holders,
> makes the reasons for their reps' inclusion into the NC more
> compelling, not
> less.
> The NC composition is dictated by the Board, not by co-optation.
>
>
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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
>
>
=====
--
SDNP Cameroon moved to new premises on 1 April 2000. See below.
Wawa A. Ngenge (Ph.D), National Coordinator, SDNP Cameroon;
B. P. 836, Yaounde, Cameroon; Tel: (237) 22 24 90; Fax: (237) 222478
wangenge@sdncmr.undp.org; www.sdnp.undp.org/sdncmr/wawa.htm
"Pipes for People: The Key to Sustainable Development"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|