Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Hmmm... but why would they care what the GA says about board selection. This
isn't a bottom-up management, it's a top-down management. Otherwise you'd be
able to change things from the bottom up. You can't.

First you have to get rid of the management.

THAT was the true relevance of Motion 1 and why so many people voted for it.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote


> The "truth" is there were two motions, with relatively similar content,
and
> both passed.   Most people, including, myself,  voted for both.  One is
> basically directed to DoC, and one is directed at the ICANN BOD reform
> process.  In my opinion, you pretty much have to address both bodies.
> People can and will make what they want of this or any other vote.  You
can
> vote the same issues as many times as you want.  Apparently you now want
the
> type of  A vrs B that was rejected before the vote, in favor of the more
> simple, yes or no on each motion.  But with the next ICANN board meeting a
> few weeks away, and almost zero bottom up statement on the fundamental
issue
> of how the board is going to be elected, it would seem to me to be much
more
> important to focus now on the issue of board selection.
>
>   Jamie


--
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