Re: [council] Re: [ga-abuse] Request for Footer on GA-ABUSEMailing List

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

It seems to me that the problem is that there is little agreement in the
GA - either amongst the membership or the Chair and Alt Chair.
I agree we shoud, so far as reasonably practical, comply with any legitimate
request from a GA office bearer - but what is a 'legitimate request'?  For
eg. is any request from any office bearer legitimate?
If so, then we would be significantly empowering the office bearers at the
cost of the membership and, potentially, the constituencies.  However, if
not, then we need to clarify what makes a request from a GA office bearer
legitimate.  While our requirements for 'legitimacy' need not be overly
onerous and should be reasonably easily met, we need some checks and
balances - particularly with respect to expenditure of resources provided by
the constituencies.
Given that there are only 2 GA office bearers, I would think that any valid
request should minimally be endorsed by the Chair and should be accompanied
by some justification including an assessment of  the level of support  from
the Alt Chair and membership.
In this case, I am simply not sure what the position is.

erica



---- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>; <patrick@quad.net.au>
Cc: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 4:58 AM
Subject: [council] Re: [ga-abuse] Request for Footer on GA-ABUSEMailing List


>
> I think it would save everyone a lot of trouble if the Secretariat
> would simply comply with legitimate requests of the GA
> officers.
>
> No one is going to accuse the Secretariat of censorship -
> or anything else - if it complies with valid requests.
>
> There will, however, be complaints if the Secretariat attempts
> to second-guess valid and simple requests.
>
>
>
>