Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

I suppose I have to change ISP: they probably try to keep me below 5 posts 
a day .... I though I was the first one to have seconded Joop's motion... 
at least I did it in the minute I received it...
I noted then that I seconded it to have a debate (I did like neither its 
complexity not its use of the IDNO reference) . I note that that motion has 
still not been yet acknowledged by the Chair but that the alt-Chair is 
already conducting a debate on it (at least to move it to one of these 
artifical lists of him).
Jefsey


On 04:55 09/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>Hi William
>
>Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all tone down
>personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity for consensus.
>
>I also note your own personal support of a constituency for individual
>domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on this one.  Many others
>are also.  Those that have said so specifically seem to me to include:
>
>In favour:
>Joop Ternstra
>William X. Walsh
>Roeland Meyer
>Joe Kelsey
>Marc Schneiders
>Patrick Corliss
>Leah Gallegos
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>Andrew McMeikan
>Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
>Eric Dierker
>Jeff Williams
>
>Opposed:
>nobody
>
>
>Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider putting it
>to a vote?
>
>Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.
>
>Regards
>Patrick Corliss
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
>To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
>Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:36 AM
>Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'
>constituency (IC)
>
>
> > Hello Joop,
> >
> > Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:21:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then perhaps
> > > the motion is better off without your "support".
> >
> > I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means, that you are in it
> > more for the personal glory than for the concept of getting a real
> > individual's constituency created in the DNSO.
> >
> > If you truly want to see an individual's constituency adopted, with
> > as broad support as would be needed to get this controversial issue
> > push forward, then you would well do to set your personal issues
> > aside, and remove the IDNO from any considerations.
> >
> > I'd hate to see the IDNO issue become a subject of debate again,
> > especially at this very important moment.
> >
> > But there are enough people who share the concerns with regard to the
> > IDNO itself that any effort to make the IDNO even a small focus of
> > this movement will meet with solid and loud opposition.
> >
> > Is it really worth it for this little personal glory, Joop?
> >
> > I think deep down you are a bigger person than that.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh
>
>
>--
>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