What the DNSO GA is or could be Was:Re: [ga] Message too long (>40000 chars)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Karl and all,

  What you suggest here Karl is something that is very worthy of good
debate and discussion.  Again, thank you for presenting it.  I have
changed to subject thread in hopes of generating some discussion
and debate on this issue.  I hope others will find this an area that is of
utmost importance to the Stakeholders, all of them.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> > If you MUST discuss this, at least stop telling lies about what the rules say.
>
> So what do "the rules" say.  As far as I know, there are no rules in
> yet in effect.
>
> And as I've said, if this group wants to cause my immediate departure,
> then it can adopt censorship, or worse, declare censorship by fiat from
> on-high.
>
> > This discussion is, for the most part moot, and is right now the
> > single largest obstacle to getting real substantive discussion going.
>
> If you want substantive discussion nobody is stopping you.
>
> How about this:
>
> There is an item on the floor, a remnant from the LA ICANN meeting about
> the GA obtaining the power such that no matter may pass out of the DNSO
> without the explicit approval of the GA.
>
> As far as I see it, a GA that has no power is a pretty sad thing when that
> GA is being sold as an alternative to "constituency" status for those who
> aren't among the select few special interests.
>
> So, pick up the challange: change the subject line and start talking about
> how the GA becomes something more than an excuse.
>
>                 --karl--

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