Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list. - Spcl Attn. Thomas Rossler and the NC

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

Danny and all assembly members,

  Indeed Danny is quite right here.  Now one has ask for the DNSO
GA list to be moderated except Harald when he was the chair.
No one desired any NC member to replace the chair of the GA.
The voting rights of the GA members was voted upon some time
ago now, and to date now GA member that I am aware or has
ask for their voting rights to be suspended or the rights of other
GA members to be suspended or eliminated either.

  So again in conclusion, Thomas, you need to review your position
as Danny has rightly suggested.

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> No one in the GA has called for a moderated list.
> No one in the GA has asked that the Chair be replaced by a Council appointee.
> No one in the GA has demanded that we lose our voting rights.
>
> Why are you so quickly jumping on the Board's bandwagon and supporting this
> ill-considered top-down "solution"?
>
> The problems in the DNSO do not stem from the GA.  We have a rapidly growing
> membership whose total exceeds that of all other constituencies combined.
> Our members are more involved with the day-to-day issues in ICANN than any
> other group.  We are the equivalent of an open Town Hall meeting that is
> always noisy, has both informed and uninformed members of the public (and
> occasionally the lunatic fringe), but overall one fact remains clear -- the
> debate is always healthy and vigorous.  A Town Hall meeting requires no
> "moderation" of the type that you are proposing... it only requires that
> which we already have in place -- sanctions against those that abuse our very
> few rules.
>
> The "problem" has always been the pathetic performance of the Council, and
> the consistently poor policy guidance that they have offered to the Board.
> The recent "Blueprint" does nothing to solve this core problem.
>
> Instead of a purely democratic one-person/one-vote in the DNSO, we are being
> told that the dysfunctional constituency system will prevail, and that the
> public interest element will lose their voting rights while only the
> lobbyists for special interest groups may vote within ICANN's
> policy-recommending bodies.  Further, the public voice must be "moderated"
> and controlled by a top-down appointed Chair.  This is unacceptable.
>
> Why should the voice of these lobbyists carry any more weight than the voice
> of the public that is represented in the GA?  Our founding structure called
> for a balance between the public interest and the special interests
> represented in the Supporting Organizations.  Since the At-Large has been
> eliminated, we remain the last bastion to support the public voice in the
> ICANN process, and the GNSO should reflect this necessary balance with full
> and complete voting rights for all of its members (not just for those that
> belong to special interest groups).
>
> As Chair, I would expect you to fight for our rights... not just to cave in
> to "imposed solutions" that run contrary to the bottom-up process.  Please
> re-think your position.
> --
> 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 124k members/stakeholders 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@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