<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Procedure.
Although not so identified, I recognize the quote from Joanna's post to be
a quote from
William X. Walsh. I just want to say that I recognize the point he is making,
namely, that
the Charter of the DNSO General Assembly does not include provision
for the kind of
action being taken here. In that, Mr. Walsh is perfectly correct. Moreover,
the notion of
using an entity's own facilities (i.e., the GA mailing list) to "bring it
down," or anything like
that, may elicit some degree of discomfort and a sense of unfairness.
So my response is this: we in the U. S. do that all the time, when we become
so "fed up"
with the conduct of some governmental entity, some office holder, and so
on, we will take
steps to have that entity or person booted, as in recall, impeachment, etc.
In our U. S. law,
we have provisions for such actions; in ICANN, there are none. But
there should have
been, and the lack thereof is just one more instance in which the fundamental
structure of
ICANN was flawed from the outset -- designed to protect the original Directors
and ensure
that for all time, the common people who use the Internet will never
have the slightest say
in how it is operated, and ICANN -- itself far exceeding the scope
of authority of its charter,
creates policy that affects all of us. The present movement represents a
statement to the
effect that "two can play at that game" -- if it takes making up our own
rules as we go along,
we shall do so. So Mr. Walsh is technically quite correct, but the shackle
that he rightly
points out is being broken nevertheless.
Bill Lovell
Joanna Lane wrote:
DPEOJECBMOLLLJOFDNDPOECACGAA.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 sta
rting 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|