Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

There is a gap from the enabling documents to what was written in stone.  It is
like the DoC said it wanted one thing through Ms. Burke and then she left and
the bylaws came back with something else and it was approved.  It is like they
were modifying the documents and when it came back for final approval, no one
at DoC noticed that changes had occured that were not considered. I refer
specifically to open election of the Board and giving power to the concept of
bottoms up. The theory remained in the document but the enforcement teeth were
removed.

This is also tied into the tax status, the IRS gave preliminary approval on the
concept but has not approved what has actually transpired.

So someone said "okay we will agree in principal but then remove the mechanism
to make it work"

Sincerely,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:26 AM
>
> > The ICANN constituency list has been locked in stone since day one, in
> > its Bylaws, and it will stay that way until organized and
> > concerted effort is
> > made to amend those Bylaws.
>
> This disgustingly true statement is indeed something to think about. Can we
> get some focus on this? ...how?
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html