<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Procedure.
On 00:46 16/05/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>I will not be able to support the first motion because this is not the
>right approach for the GA of the DNSO.
This is a pure statement not conforted by a bylaw quotation. All the quotes
I have seen so far are based upon a far too restrictive reading to be
accepted. However what is realy opposed if that if 30 people votes it obver
50 (small figures) it is represented as a result of the GA. This is really
a "BC" vision of democracy: 'please tell me who will vote for you, so I may
see if there is a reason for a vote"
I have no problem in havnig the motion distributed as "signed by x Members
of the DNSO/GA" ...
>There are many reasons, including the points made by Darryl. And, in
>addition, this motion is very US centric in its approach to redress--
>which is exceedingly ironic.
This is a good point. But it is not that a problem as the mission statement
is to internatinalize the ICANN what has not been done. So resuming a
proper management is to internationalize.
>My personal view is that the GA has been seriously diverted from providing
>comments on the White Papers.
Glubs? on the white papers? Is that not what it does, "calling back to the
withe paper".
>However, leaving that aside, the second motion is much more appropriate in
>its focus. While I have some problems with some of its phrases, it is
>focused toward providing comments toward the right "recipient" -- ICANN.
True, a proper debate would have had it addressed to the DoC via the
ICANN. There does not any real difference
jfc
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|