Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

[Eric Dierker <Eric@hi-tek.com>]

Amen brothers and sisters, this is positive and progressive.  If we are going to
move forward let us look to tommorrow.
Critical yet moving forward.  Greg it is a conundrum.

Ultreya,


Joanna Lane wrote:

> Sotiris wrote:-
>  (BTW
> Imbalance is also what has led to the current stand-still in the WG-Review
> Discussion.  I would just like to ask the Chair of the WG-Review why it is
> that
> he feels it more pressing upon his time to move forward matters in the GA
> List,
> to which he has no [to my knowledge] official relation, other than having
> been
> nominated as candidate for some nebulous election, and not instead push on
> to
> complete the WGr? )
>
> - Sotiris, I think you are being a little disingenuous here. The GA Chair
> issue is certainly
> not nebulous and since the GA is a topic on this list, it is hardly
> inappropriate for Greg to seek feedback from
> the membership as a way to move both the GA and WG-Review forward.
> His efforts deserve our support, not criticism.
> Joanna
>
> Sotiris wrote:-
> One thing that could be done is to immediately call for a moratorium on all
> pending UDRP actions which do not involve infringement of a demonstrably
> coined
> word or clearly associative commercial interest/intent.  I think such a move
> would go a long way to bringing a little bit of respectability back to some
> areas of Justice.  Further, they could publicly lay aside their plans for
> *somehow* adding geographical indications and other excuses to a growing
> list of
> *reasons* for domain USURPATION.  Who gets a geographic name after all?  Do
> we
> live in the same reality?  Do they really want to start stirring up such
> problems?  Do you want to allow them to do so?  Do we?  There must be a
> reconsideration of priorities, and there should be evidence of goodwill on
> both
> sides.  Certain substantial moves have to be made, not merely gestures.
>
> - I think this is worth consideration, but hang on, we need a DNDEF don't we
> to come up with a viable alternative?
>
> To
> date, the record shows that there are 5 AtLarge Directors on the Board.
> Correct
> me if I'm wrong, but are there not supposed to be 9?  If there are supposed
> to
> be nine, why are there only five?  Whose interests were being served when
> the
> decision to go with 5 was taken?  How much more plain can it be?
>
> - Could your world@large site be used to run elections for the other 4?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> 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