RE: [ga] Diplomacy

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Thank you for your clear and direct ststement. 

You seem to disregard the fact that the GA includes the ccTLDs. In any
case your remarks below leave me with no desire to support your ideas,
even the ones I might agree with.

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
DannyYounger@cs.com
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 3:53 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Diplomacy


Peter,

I no longer see the value in diplomacy when the supporters of cronyism 
finally saw fit to throw out the NC rule book so that Phil Sheppard
could 
continue to engage in his shameless manipulations.  What rules will the
NC 
discard next?  Instead of constituencies participating in the working
groups 
of the GA, this ilk on the Council has already so twisted the Bylaws
that the 
GA is totally denied working groups and can only send a solitary member
to a 
TF of the NC.  The views of the GA are treated as minority comments
worth 
only a single sentance in a report drafted by the BC, instead of as the 
consensus view of the bulk of the DNSO participants.

As a Council member, you have supported this perversion of the Bylaws
that 
has denied the GA its voice, and you have done nothing to call an end to
the 
Task Force process.  You want a creative and descriptive comment?...
Fine...

You have indicated that the ccTLDs no longer desire to remain in the
DNSO...  
that's OK by me... get out, you're of no help to us anyway.





--
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