Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:25:22 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why don't you follow your own advice and take this discussion (now
> argument)
> > to ga-rules?
>
> You are being difficult.  It is a question of legitimacy.  Nothing agreed on
> [ga-rules] has any affect UNLESS and UNTIL the GA says it does.
>
> Which is exactly what I am trying vainly to do.

And you will continue to work in vain until you recognize that before one
goes to the GA for "approval" of anything, one has to have something
of substance to take there.  That has to be worked out first, and if you
start out going to the GA for a vote on some chimeric thing that has
little if any existence, you'll not get it.  The subject matter of a vote
has first to be defined, and it is only through discussion on ga-rules
(in this particular case), without any "by your leave" from anyone,
that the matter can be sufficiently defined to be worthy of a vote.
So just move all this to ga-rules and we'll get somewhere.

(Today I might have exceeded my 5/day limit; if so, my apologies,
and the monitor can commence to beat me about the head and
shoulders.)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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