Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>]

too bad the orsc civil discourse rules dont apply here.
roland would be spending time in the "penalty box" .

----- Original Message -----
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
change seating rule)


> This message is being resent because there seems to be a disconnect going
> on. The last I heard, the context was the GA and this is certainly the GA
> mailing list. I was talking about the GA, or am I moving too fast for
y'all?
>
> The "we" in item 1 is the GA. However, I may have confused some of you
with
> my reference to the general NC body. It is opening yet another can of
worms
> when we discuss formation and instantiation of the various constituencies.
> They were created by fiat, by the ICANN BoD. They were captured by the
> power-clique and I don't consider their NC representitives fairly elected.
> That is my opinion, one that cannot be changed without proof, that various
> constituencies are not willing/able to provide. It certainly isn't
available
> to any GA member.
>
> In addition, it is certainly telling that the constituencies serve on an
> at-will basis. Ergo, they are 100% at the behest of the ICANN BoD. If they
> don't do what the BoD asks, or they cause too much upheaval, then the BoD
> can dissolve that constituency. Hence my statement that the NC is an
> appointed body.
>
> Lacking a constituency for individual domain name owners and small
> businesses, the GA is forced to assume that role. Yet, it is not allowed
to
> select its own NC rep. Jonathan may be a fine individual, but he really
> should step down in favour of the real GA choice, Jamie Love, whom
garnered
> almost twice as many votes.
>
> No, the NC is not an elected body, it is appointed, or near enough so as
to
> not make much/any difference.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> 1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried and we
failed.
> The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the wishes of
the
> GA. That record is clear.
>
> 2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there is, show it to
> me.
>
> 3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN BoD is the
> sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.
>
> Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. However, this is
> the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You are usually not
> this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are feeling too well.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:20 AM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General
> > Assembly call to
> > change seating rule)
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> > >
> > > Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?
> >
> > The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and
> > balances on
> > *any* elected body -- if you don't like what your representatives do,
> > you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.
> > That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery about the
> > NC in this regard.
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html