Re: [ga] At-Large

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Monday, July 8, 2002, 2:24:26 AM, Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:
TR> On 2002-07-07 20:47:57 -0500, Don Brown wrote:

>>There could have been legal reasons or other reasons why Karl was  
>>a no-show.  He can be his own spokesman.

TR> Of course.  I'm still waiting for his _public_ expanation, though.
We may be waiting forever, if it was due to legal reason, as I suspect
it was. He is a party to a law suit which, among other things,
involves questions about his ability to properly discharge his
obligation as a director, due to ICANN imposed restrictions.


>>However, even if Karl had been present, it is extremely doubtful 
>>to me that the outcome would have been any different.

TR> Probably, yes.  Still, given Karl's analysis that a "fully empowered 
TR> membership is entirely feasible", and that it all happened because 
TR> "people ... kept creeping backwards", I'm wondering very much why he 
TR> should give up.  (In particular, he could at least have remvoed the 
TR> word "unanimous" from the public reports.)
I saw no signal that he has given up.  Maybe I missed it.


>>Incidentally, Thomas, how much debate and energy did the GA's  
>>Chair offer in favor of a continued GA voice in ICANN? Did you  
>>attend the meeting or make any other effort to participate in it - 
>>in support of the GA, of course?

TR> To begin with, the GA's chair and alt.chair don't even get expenses 
TR> to attend meetings, call into meetings, or call into telephone  
TR> conferences.  Directors do.  

TR> Salzburg seminar funding was also not available this time, so  
TR> Alexander went to Bucharest on his own cost.  I didn't, for a  
TR> variety of reasons.

TR> Further, both Alexander and I have been spending countless hours  
TR> (and transatlantic phone calls - no expenses for that, either) on  
TR> trying to convince the Names Council that the GA can indeed  
TR> contribute reasonably - note that the Council will ultimately be the 
TR> institution which decides what the GA will look like in the future - 
TR> the E&R blueprint mostly sets directions for that - by trying to  
TR> demonstrate that the GA can constructively contribute to the DNSO's  
TR> work.  I do think that at least some constituencies begin to  
TR> understand that the DNSO would lose something important by killing  
TR> the GA, or by restricting access to the GA to constituency members.

TR> Note that I don't mention votes: I'm still convinced that it's not  
TR> a good idea to have the GA vote secretly on actual issues.  Use open 
TR> polls instead, and most of the problems go away.
Thomas, I have gotten mixed signals from your posts, from time to
time, about your personal alignment with the GA or with those who
seek to abolish the GA.

Your position is clear, as stated above. I appreciate your efforts in
support of the GA.

Thanks,



----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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