Re: Rules overruled was:Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

[James Touton <jim.touton@netzero.net>]

Jeff and all DNSO'ers,

  Yes.  It is likely that Roberto made a very bad political faux pas.  You
pointed it up nicely here Jeff.  Again Kudos!

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Roberto and all,
>
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > Ellen,
> >
> > You wrote:
> > >
> > >Mr. Gaetano:  Au contraire.  At the Names Council meeting on June 25,
> > 1999,
> > >the GA list was defined as the General Assembly of the DNSO.  See
> > >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCsj-admin.html
> > >
> >
> > Indeed.
> > But this decision has been overruled when the the GA has been redefined
> > (for the purpose of the nomination process) with a different set of
> > rules.
>
>   Oh so now rules are overruled without the benefit of the membership
> voting or deciding if that is reasonable?  If so, why have rules at all if
> they are overruled without due process?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Yet the Names Council *unamiously* accepted on June 25, 1999 that the
> > GA
> > >existed and the mailing list (now ga@dnso.org but previously
> > >discuss@dnso.org) comprised the General Assembly.  So you need to take
> > up
> > >your arguments with the Names Council, not me.  I am just restating the
> >
> > >public record as I know it, although things are so convoluted that
> > >subsequent administrative meetings may have altered the decision noted
> > >above.  Have they?
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > In fact, the rationale for this change of attitude by the NC was that
> > there are people who are participating to the DNSO but not subscribers
> > to the list, and that have to be accounted for.
>
>   What NC?  We have no legitimate NC yet.  The rules were not followed
> in the election ending October 8th.  So how could their be a legitimate
> NC?
>
> >
> >
> > Regardless the current and/or past attitude of the NC about the best
> > definition to "bootstrap" the GA process, I believe that it is not wise
> > from our part not to have a strategy in terms of the definition of the
> > "membership" of the GA.
> > In the future, the GA-list will continue to be what it has been up to
> > now, i.e. a discussion list, but if ever any substantial decision will
> > be made by the GA, it will be done via a "membership" mechanism that
> > will not correspond 100% with the "list subscription" mechanism.
>
>   Well this is at least a good idea.  But certainly not a new one, it has
> been
> both assumed and well documented that this has always been the case.
>
> >
> >
> > > <I snipped the question on terminology - it may be of lesser priority>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >This discussion should focus solely on the RIGHTS TO POST not on
> > whether or
> > >not the GA is a decision-making body.  I object to using this mailing
> > list
> > >rules opinion poll to extend the discussion to a policy decision
> > regarding
> > >the rights inherent in GA membership.
> >
> > I am not sure to understand this.
> >
> > Where should the (very important, IMHO) issues about the GA Membership
> > be discussed if not on this list?
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html