Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

["Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <william@wxsoft.info>
To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN
Reform, May 2002


> Thursday, May 23, 2002, 10:06:08 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > On 01:20 p.m. 24/05/2002 +1000, Dassa said:
>
> >>Totally false.  The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises the
> >>question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.
>
> > It may still raise that question for you  and Mr Walsh, but *all* GA
>
> "Mr Walsh" doesn't vote in inappropriate votes that violate the
> charter

Interesting ( to me, but probably not many other GA members)that you keep
using such words.
There is no part of the "charter" (- I think you mean the bylaws? ) that
limits the activity of the GA.  Can you point to that part of the charter
that is expressly "violated" ?

>and are outside the charter dictated role of the DNSO GA.

This is a slightly different point. You appear to believe that the charter
limits the activity of the GA in the same way that some company laws makes
"ultra vires" those activities of the company that are not expressly
authorised in its Articles of Association. My own jurisdiction, and many
others abandoned this concept in company law many years ago.

Do you believe that the "charter" of the GA should be amended, to expressly
include the limitation you assert?

regards

--
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