Re: [ga] "to represent the unrepresented"

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

Joanna,

I feel a certain sense of deja vue.  Could it be time lines are the artillery of
the established? as in the wg-review.

We are talking a registrants constituency here as there is a difference between
that and an individual user.

Allow me to join, in a sense with Danny's most recent request to ICANN's Stuart
Lynn;  the proposals need not be resubmitted.  The approval process should not
be repeated but concluded.  It is time to set the thing up and allow self
formation within the group to occur.

So the question begs from the board and the NC what do you really want in order
to proclaim it so?????

Whatever they want is ok but to deny telling us and having unwritten protocol is
dead wrong..

Eric

Joanna Lane wrote:

> <snip>
> If you are prepared to spend dozens of hours preparing a superb proposal,
> that is great news. Count me in. And if you want to use one of the idle
> sub-lists for the purpose, it is ready and waiting.
>
> Given the timeframe before Montevideo and the need to accomodate
> longstanding supporters of an individual's constituency in any formal
> proposal made, I would invite the IDNO to submit clean copies of all
> relevant documents to the GA list for further discussion and debate. Of
> course, more than one proposal may go forward, but ideally, we may reach
> consensus following Best Practice procedures of the GA, which are now at our
> disposal.
>
> There really is no excuse for not producing this stuff IMO.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>

--
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