Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

[James Love <james.love@cptech.org>]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Well, I believe that the GA should be able to take votes on matters 
> relevant to its mission and matters relevant to its internal functioning.
> For instance, should be able to elect its chair.
> If the GA starts becoming a body whose main purpose is to vote motions, 
> moreover addressed at bodies outside ICANN, like in the recent past, the 
> results are before our eyes.

     Which means what?  You agree that the GA should not record opinions if 
that offends the ICANN board?



> That the GA should be able at all to make recommendation to the 
> Department of Commerce, or to any other Department, or to the Security 
> Council of the United Nations, or to the local council of the Automobile 
> Association of America, is questionable.
> Personally, I have always endorsed a vision of the GA as a forum for 
> debate, with capability to take a vote on a specific set of issues and 
> under specific circumstances. Of course, the motionmania has brought us 
> in a different direction, and now we have to face the consequences.
> Remember the "suicide of the GA" thread?

    Yes.  And your point is what?  Live unfree and don't die?

    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