Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

i agree with roberto here regarding the names council's role in this
process... as i have stated before:

"You DO NOT need the names council approval to form a new constituancy,
never have  and as i see it , you never will need the NC approval  (just
like
the cctld's forming their own SO)"

i find it quite surprising that an intelligent group of personalities with
the
kind of perception  displayed here on a regular basis cannot seem to create
these "criteria" on their own..then they can take it to the NC if they wish
for "vetting" (frankly, i dont think that is as important as taking to the
individual constituancies)

my best guess is that it could most certainly be done in a 4-6 hour
brain-storming session..

most of the "interested parties"  are logical thinkers and have organized
creative minds.   and after 2 years+ in the "trenches" my guess is that
they must have a pretty good idea where the pitfalls are and why the
previous proposal
failed in the past..


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>
To: <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?


> Joop,
>
> >
> >Yes, the can represent, provided that they are elected by a real
> >membership.
> >But one has to start bottom-up and the large numbers can appear only
after
> >recognition of the constituency in principle.
> >It is this dimension of reality that I am concerned with.
>
> I think we agree in principle on the need for an individual constituency
> (you may remember that I was one of the early supporters of this
> constituency, when it was not "fashionable" yet).
> The disagreement is only on the fact that I don't see the NC recognition
as
> a prerequisite *before* starting to work at a new charter and recruitment
of
> supporters.
> IMHO, we should continue the discussion that started with some interesting
> postings about "Registrants", and that unfortunately died out. There is
> nothing better to support our request to NC (and later to ICANN) than a
> sound proposal, even in a draft status.
>
> >
> >Please try to remember that you are elected yourself, ---by how many
> >votes?--, to represent the GA on the Task Force.  You must try to
represent
> >the will of the GA and help the NC produce that recognition in principle.
>
> And I believe that this is what I am doing, as a GA representative (if you
> don't think this is true, please tell me why).
> But this will not prevent me (as an individual) to warn against the belief
> that recognition by the NC of the principle of an Individual/Registrant
> constituency will solve all the problems.
>
> The Constituency will not be given to us on a silver plate without hard
work
> from our part. In every negotiation failure to present continuously new
> elements will inevitably bring to a stall.
>
> 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
>
>

--
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