[ga] BC revision

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Fellow GA,
Philip Sheppard asked me why I had informed the GA bypassing my colleagues 
of the BC. This is a good question I responded in detail copy to the BC 
Members and I told him that I will report to the GA.

I suppose it will help you understanding better, the same as your comments 
may help Philip understanding better: I do not think anyone is fighting 
anyone: but good and wise coments in here like Roealnd's, Joanna's, WXW's, 
Andy's, Patrick's, Jeff's etc.. may really help Philip.

1. There are enough people IMHO illegitimately denied BC Membership and too 
much control on the BC mailing list for me not to consider that the GA is a 
second BC list. It also happens that top managers of BC Member reads the GA 
to be informed on the BC, not being copied the BC mails by their employee. 
I say them "hello!"  (don't be afraid I will not betray you!).

2. BC has published on the GA that the BC issues I called upon the NC to 
help settling would be addressed internally by the Members. No internal 
debate occured. The new Charter voids parts of them.

3. the new charter plans to revamp the DNSO menbership creating needs for a 
cross-constituency dialog which can only occur at the NC - long time to go 
- and be preparted at the GA. It should have been to Philip to initiate it 
on the GA.

A key point of interest on the GA is the end of the SME reference and the 
suppression of the SME Committee. This obviously calls for an SME 
Constituency. I will publish a mail on this.

4. But mainly the published calendar is very short and the DNSO public 
review period has necessarily begun.

Vanny has certainly a good point about internal matters to be dealt 
internally with. But this draft is not a draft. It falls in the "draft to 
be urgently agreed as a permanent document due to a long prepared in 
extremis" ICANN document collection.

Philip tells he is surprised that I am surprised because the charter change 
has been extensively annouced. This is true the change of charter has been 
alluded to for a while - no one voted a change however nor discussed it 
until we learn that after a short period for comments a text will be edited 
and affirmated. I suppose that if that text has been long prepared it 
cannot be a draft anymore.

Now my general comment is that BC Members - no more than any Constituency 
Members - dont own the BC constituency (sorry Andy they cannot sell them!). 
But that BC Members - as any other Constituency's Members - have duties 
towards the World's Businesses community they represent and towards the 
Global Internet Community represented in part by the GA.

Jefsey

--
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