Re: [ga] NC violations of ICANN charters

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 12:34:55PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 
> I believe the term that Amadeu(?) very much wanted applied here was
> that the ga@dnso.org list would be the "sole expression" of the GA.

Thanks for confirming my statement.
[...]
> 
> This doesn't address the main point being made here, which is that the
> NC has not initiated the process required in the by-laws by which the
> GA may elect its representatives.

There is no such process mentioned in the bylaws -- the GA does not
elect representatives to anything.  

The NC selects the BoD of ICANN members.  The GA nominates candidates
for the BoD of ICANN, but, since membership in the GA is
unrestricted, that just means that anyone can nominate candidates for
the BoD. 

> The GA is not represented in the
> NC, and the NC can (and has) held up this process.  Furthermore, it's
> made no indication that it intends to proceed on this item.

There is no such item to proceed on.  

Personally, I don't think it would be a bad idea if the GA elected a
set of 3 NC reps, and I have proposed it several times.  But there is
no such requirement currently in the bylaws. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain