Re: [ga] Procedure.

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

mcade@att.com (Wed 05/15/02 at 06:46 PM -0400):

> My personal view is that the GA has been seriously diverted from providing
> comments on the White Papers.  

indeed it has, and that's a very good thing. the 'white papers,' like
their 'clean sheet' predecessor (this is beginning to sound like a de-
tergent ad) are clear signs that ICANN staff and its sedated board re-
fuse to acknowledge the limits on purview and power that were the man-
datory terms of ICANN's existence. as such, the duty to ignore and/or
cirumvent them falls on ICANN's other component bodies.

> 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. 

it's quite telling that you yourself use 'ICANN' to refer to its staff
and board, because that is a fact. these two entities pay attention to
the other component bodies only when it suits their interests. when it
comes to this 'reform' process, they will not do so. ergo, it's entire-
ly approproate that component bodies should speak to other audiences.

cheers,
t
--
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