[ga] Re: Complaint

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Eric Dierker writes:  "The real point is that if the NC and BoD are intent
on allowing a IDNH all they have to do is grant the foreplaced petition.
Why hasn't Karl done such a thing in a formal motion?"

Perhaps the Board is not intent on allowing an IDNH.  Perhaps the arguments
for an IDNH have not yet completely swayed the Board.  The Board is expected
to work within the framework of the ByLaws which state, "The Board may
create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own
motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
Corporation."  Perhaps they are not yet convinced that this would serve the
purposes of the Corporation.  Where are your definitive arguments mustered?
Have any of these arguments been offered up to the Board in some documentary
form for evaluation?

Eric also writes, "There is no question the studies and groups say to enact
it and are well thought out and in accordance with the current status of
rules, by-laws and consensus."  I disagree.  I too was a member of the
WG-Review, and I recall a majority of participants in favor of the
dissolution of the Names Council's constituency structure.  If the majority
favored not having a constituency structure, how then can you argue that
studies say to enact a new constituency?  Will we enact it only to later
dissolve constituency structures?

The discussion has still not proceeded to the point of consensus on this
issue.  Further dialogue is required to resolve this dichotomy of views.

I am taking this discussion to the ga-review list.  I hope that others will
consider continuing a dialogue in that forum.


--
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