RE: [ga] Reply to Jefsey

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of NameCritic
|> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 8:08 AM
|> To: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: Fw: [ga] Reply to Jefsey
|>
|>
|> Just for my own knowledge. Is the GA's job to support ICANN no matter
what?
|> Any dissenting opinion against how ICANN operates or any discussion of a
|> replacement for ICANN is considered rogue behavior and not allowed to
become
|> motions?
|>
|> just asking a question.

I think it is more to do with such discussions and motions being outside of
the scope for the GA to consider.

The GA has a limited mandate on the functions it is to perform.  Discussing
and posting motions for an ICANN replacement would certainly fall outside
of the mandate.  Discussing failures of ICANN and possible policy
improvements/initiatives would be within the mandate.

It is not a matter of supporting ICANN no matter what.  But it is a matter
of supporting ICANN in policy matters and working with ICANN for
improvement.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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