| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid ICANN's Gig
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 13 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Gary,
Thomas pointed out that the ICANNwatch article omitted one of the motions. If motion 2 [caveat: of which I am the author] had miserably failed to get any support, I might have understood that omission. Since it hasn't, the article is one-sided.
This was my final comment.
- Alexander
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
Re: DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid ICANN'
by alexander
|
|
|
 |
There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion regarding whether these are competing motions, that is, if either motion stands then the other motion must fail, if the two are seem as incompatible. Thomas the GA Chair seems to think they are incompatible. I am unclear whether you see them that way, though your putting forward of a motion different from the first at the time the first was being considered implies that you see, indeed intended, the two being at odds. The problem is that most of the voters don't agree, they voted for both. An impartial Chair and Alt Chair would presumably be willing to accept that fact as the will of the majority. The Chair and Alt Chair have a great deal of say in what goes in a ballot, even without specifically drafting a Motion as happened here. If there is confusion regarding the meaning of the vote, then the Chair and Alt Chair also must bear a great deal of the responsibility for that confusion. The voters showed either that they weren't confused about what they meant by voting, or if they were, they at least shared the same confusion (which, I suppose, is still democracy in action). If the two Motions had not been put forward together in the first place, for which you and Thomas share sole responsibility, there would now be far less opportunity for such confusion. A couple of the supporters of the first Motion, including its drafter, are now accused, by a couple of the supporters of the second Motion, including its drafter, of trying to create confusion through their reporting on the vote. This sudden concern about confusion doesn't elicit much sympathy. -g
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
 |
Alexander, maybe you can explain the difference in substance between the 2 motions..... and why you or TR thinks Motion 2 is particuarly important, or what you think the significance of Motion 1 is. And also, maybe you could report also when Motion 2 was first announced, and how you came to obtain a private extention on a public deadline for sumitting a motion. And if you think the way that Motion 2 has handled is a good model for debate on these issues.
Jamie
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|