Re: [ga] Re: 2001-2002 Budget

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Vint,
My Frenglish leads me to look into wording details. Sometimes
it makes me read more than written. Often it makes me read
what others have overlooked.

"The upcoming meeting will be a good time to review this".

Has it the same meaning that what I expected:

"The upcoming meeting will be the last chance to decide about
   this in order to stay on the committed schedule. Otherwise we
   will have to modify the bylaws to say that the mandate of an
   @large Directors ends with the begining of the mandate of his
   successor".

Jefsey
Chair, france@large


At 18:01 11/05/01, L Gallegos wrote:
>I strongly disagree.  The time to review it is right now, before the
>meeting.  At the meeting it will be accepted as a fait accompli.
>
>The concerns expressed are valid, IMO.  The at-large is one of most
>important issues facing ICANN.  To leave it totally out of the budget
>speaks volumes to us.  There must be an allocation of funds so that
>when the study has been completed, the process can move forward
>immediately.  If more must be allocated at that time, that issue can be
>dealt with, but the Board must not ignore it in the currently proposed
>budget as it indicates that stated opinions by board members are,
>indeed, fact - that the Board does not see a need for an at-large and
>several board members are opposed to it.
>
>The bylaws now indicate that members are not members at all for
>puposes of California law.  Board actions indicate that they will not even
>be included in future "selections."  This is counter to the MOU and
>White Paper.  Please reconsider the budget and include funds for the at-
>large.
>
>On 11 May 2001, at 9:56, vint cerf wrote:
>
> > The upcoming meeting will be a good time to review this
> >
> > vint
> >
> > At 10:20 AM 5/11/2001 -0400, Jon Weinberg wrote:
> > >Vint --
> > >
> > >    Here's the crux of the problem:  The ICANN bylaws state that the Board
> > >will "take final action on the [At-Large] study no later than the Annual
> > >Meeting of the Corporation in 2001; and [c.] any actions taken by the
> > >Board as a result of the study that require the selection of any "At
> > >Large" Directors should be implemented on a schedule that will allow any
> > >new "At Large" Directors to be seated no later than the conclusion of the
> > >Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2002."  (Remember that the terms of
> > >the existing at-large directors expire in 2002.)  But here we see a
> > >budget, running from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, that includes *no*
> > >allowance for any possible expenditures relating to an election,
> > >preparation of voter lists, etc.  The result:  If the Committee should
> > >recommend that a new round of elections should be held, and if the Board
> > >should adopt that recommendation, it will be impossible for the
> > >corporation to move forward with that course of action on the schedule
> > >that the by-laws require.
> > >
> > >Jon
> > >
> > >
> > >Jonathan Weinberg
> > >weinberg@msen.com
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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