RE: [ga] Procedure.

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

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org] 
|> On Behalf Of jefsey
|> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:02 AM
|> To: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.
|> 
|> 
|> On 00:17 16/05/02, Dassa said:
|> >|> -----Original Message-----
|> >|> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org]
|> >|> On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
|> >|> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:18 AM
|> >|> To: dassa@dhs.org
|> >|> Cc: ga@dnso.org
|> >|> Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.
|> 
|> Dear Dassa,
|> since you use:
|> >|>   The DNSO GA is supposed to advise the ICANN BoD on issues
|> 
|> to explain your problem, may I underline that "is supposed 
|> to advise" does not mean that it is obliged to only do that. The GA
does 
|> many other things.
<snip>

The purpose of the GA is fairly well defined and the scope is defined by
the documents relating to it's formation and the intentions behind the
formation.  It is not a group that can put the GA stamp of approval on
anything even the majority of members may agree with.

As individuals we may support many positions and advocate many different
ways of tackling the issues facing the DNS scene but as a body, we must
remember why we are here and act accordingly.

In my view, the first motion advocating direct attempts to influence a
government body external to ICANN is way outside of any action the GA as
a body should be involved in.  As individuals we are free to take such
actions certainly and if there was a document circulating that required
a signature to show support for more competition and openness in the
processes complained about, I would certainly sign on for it.  But as an
individual.  I do not agree to using the GA name on such actions.

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