RE: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

[Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>]

with respect to all, is there anything that stops the GA from replacing
her representative ?

abel



On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 14:13, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Regardless of whether you like Danny's choice of words or not, it appears to
> me that what he is saying is probably quite accurate, at least with regard
> to the fact the report is primarily one prepared by Philip.  I know for a
> fact that the gTLD Registry Constituency submitted fairly significant
> comments to the TF only to be largely ignored.  There was not even any
> effort to discuss the points we put forward let alone consider any of them
> in the task force report.
> 
> Unfortunately, this has become the standard operating procedure in the NC.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:23 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)
> 
> 
> Philip Sheppard has published his latest version of the Structure TF report 
> (v6) at 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00013.doc
> 
> It's still a piece of garbage, and it does no more than incorporate the
> IPC's 
> comment that no policy recommendations should come from the ALSO separately.
> 
> It's time for our GA rep to react to this travesty.  
> 
> The ICANN Board requested comments on the ALSC Final report from the NC 
> within 45 days of their November 15 announcement:  "Further resolved
> [01.126] 
> that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final Report from the Internet 
> community as a whole, including the DNSO Names Council, the ASO Address 
> Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests that any such comments be
> 
> submitted within 45 days from the date of this Resolution;"
> 
> Why are we participating in a bogus analysis of the ALM which is well past 
> the deadline for comments, instead of looking at the restructuring proposals
> 
> for the DNSO which have been put on the table?  Why aren't we also looking
> at 
> the restructuring of ICANN in light of the movement toward a ccSO?  Why is 
> the TF avoiding these other issues and only acting to attack the ALM?  
> 
> Does our GA rep support the position taken in the document that "There will 
> be one additional at-large member than the status quo of five."?!! 
> 
> This is a call to arms.  Either you start fighting back for the future of
> the 
> At-Large or you put on your kneepads and grovel before the BC and IPC.  The 
> choice is yours.  
> --
> 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


--
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