Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all assembly members,

  I think that Joanna is correct.  I cannot find any rule for election that
requires 10 endorsements that is a voted upon rule for elections.
I believe that Joanna ask you to provide such proof.  You haven't
done so that has any official status.  Again, as Joanna points out and
has been pointed out time and time again the games playing here
in this area of procedure(s) is hampering progress unnecessarily.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > > I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA
> >nominations,
> > > 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC
> >rules
> > > of procedure.
> > > I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view.
> > > Deadline August 15. ACTION all.
> >
> >Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
> >nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not the GA's,
> >and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm afraid.
> >Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its own
> >Chair
> >was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the Chairmanship
> >of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during the last
> >Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens) seconded and
> >voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the
> >possible
> >exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the greatest
> >respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid consensus
> >building procedures that were undertaken within only recently during the
> >last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.
> >
> >It is this kind of games playing by the NC that is counterproductive and
> >causes increased resentment within the GA. I regret this decision has
> >already been made and by a far greater range and number of affected
> >stakeholders than the NC can possibly muster in this very limited Task
> >Force. I would remind you that under the rules of cricket, when an over is
> >over, it is over and a losing player cannot ask for a rematch simply
> >because
> >he is captain of the team.
>
> I am not sure to understand what you are talking about.
> I have stated officially my position on the election of the GA-Chair in
> Marina del Rey last year (see
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400.html#issues)
>
> If you believe I think now differently, please provide evidence.
>
> 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@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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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