RE: [ga] Procedure.

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

> This motion is not topical to the DNSO General Assembly, is outside
> the scope of its charter, and should be ruled out of order by the
> Chair.

This is a very straightforward question and the answer is simply no, it is
not out of order. There is no doubt in my mind that Motion #1 is a viable
restructuring proposal, whereas Motion #2, is not, it seeks only to remind
ICANN to do its job properly, something we have repeatedly expressed as an
Assembly for years with no positive results so far.

Even if you do not agree with that contention, Motion # 1 can only be out of
order on the basis that it is not possible for an entity to fail, which of
course is nonsense, witness Enron, hence the possibility must exist for the
best interests of the public to be served by replacing ICANN as a whole, the
mechanism for which is rebidding the ICANN contracts. Therefore, this Motion
forms part of the GA's restructuring proposal and is valid.

The real objection to the Motion of course is that it does not take the top
down directive to use the Lynn proposal as a starting point, but rather
responds to a bottom up initiative that does not even acknowledge the
existence of the Lynn plan at all.  It might be worth another Motion,
(Motion #3) to reject the Lynn plan as a whole, thereby opening the door to
rebidding the ICANN contract as a viable restructuring alternative, but I
had thought the community sufficiently intelligent to join those dots.


> The chair should respect the GA enough to take a public position on
> this point, as I am not the only one waiting to see the result.

On this we agree.

Regards,
Joanna
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>

--
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