RE: [ga] Procedure.

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org] 
|> On Behalf Of William X Walsh
|> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 7:34 AM
|> To: William S. Lovell
|> Cc: Joanna Lane; ga@dnso.org; Gary Osbourne; Thomas Roessler
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.
|> 
<snip> 
|> If something is not topical for the GA, it is the Chair's job to
|> enforce that.  You may not like it, but personally I don't care one
|> damn bit what you like, Bill.  The GA's role is defined, its scope is
|> defined, and neither of these motions are within the GA's scope and
|> role.

Whilst I agree a motion calling for a rebid directed to an external body
is not within scope, I feel the other motion calling for participation
in and attempting to ensure the overall guiding principles involved in
the ICANN formation are adhered to, is within scope for the GA.
Providing the motion is addressed to the proper channels, which I have
assumed it would be.  To me, one motion seeks to influence an external
body to the detriment of the organisation whilst the other attempts to
work within to achieve a positive outcome.

One I'm comfortable supporting, the other I feel is a campaign that
should be waged outside of the GA and if it was, I would support it also
as an individual.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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