Re: [ga] Dan Steinberg

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

Dear All Members,

Roberto has spoken well and true here.  While I disagree with his lack of
radicalism in representing what I perceive as the InternetStakeholders I very
much appreciate his candor in this post.

UDRP TF
DNSO REVIEW

Mr. Corliss please designate the sub-list for discussion of the Review matters.
I think the UDRP is obvious.

May we please waive any posting limits for Dan and Roberto during their term on
these matters.  May we all please leave out the bickering regarding the GA-list
and the sublists. Will someone who is not suspended please post the mandates for
the TF and Review on the appropriate sublists and the GA-list.

Would someone wiser than I please begin a GA position paper on the Transfer
matter and the New.net matter and may we keep those matters fresh in the GA-list
but also agree on sublists.

Please may we make the sub-lists resolve to the GA-full so that we fulfill our
legal requirements as set forth in our founding documents.

Thank you for any consideration.
Eric

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Sotiris,
>
> >
> >I just want to inform any newbies who don't already know, that Dan
> >Steinberg
> >(Open Root Server Confederation; Canada) was one of the members of the
> >Membership Advisory Committee (“MAC”) back in 1999 that "recommended that
> >the
> >election of At Large Directors be undertaken in at least two tranches
> >[portions], so that the experience of the first effort could be used to
> >adjust
> >the process for the remaining elections to the extent necessary to increase
> >the odds of a broadly representative electorate."
> >
> >I wonder how truly representative of the GA's sentiments Mr. Steinberg will
> >be
> >with respect to the UDRP? I hope we'll hear from him now and then...
>
> Incidentally, the idea of having the AtLarge elections split in two parts
> did then (1999) have some kind of support, within and outside the MAC. But
> the general assumption was that the two elections were to be hold within a
> reasonable amount of time, not to be pushed so far in the future as it
> currently is.
>
> Anyway, back to the main point (is Dan likely to represent the GA) there is
> a difference in the two cases: for the MAC, he was operating as an
> individual, while for the UDRP, he shall present the views of the GA (if
> there are any).
> I know Dan personally, and as I stated already in another message to the
> list, we mostly disagree on specific issues but I trust him to present the
> views of the GA rather than his own agenda. I don't know the other two
> candidates, and therefore I could not make the same statement for them.
> This said, I find worrisome that the interaction between Dan and GA is
> virtually non-existent at this point in time. This is why, even with all my
> trust for Dan, I did not feel like voting.
>
> The key here is that the GA shall get some consensus points, that Dan should
> bring forward. Obviously, if the GA does not express any consensus point,
> Dan will be free to present his own point of view in the committee.
> The same, of course, will apply for the DNSO Review, where I have the
> pleasure and honour to represent the GA. But I will post a message on this
> in the next 48H.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --
> 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