Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Roberto,
A resounding apology. The first part of this message was intended for you
and the second part refers to our esteemed NC Chair. For some reason best
known to myself I completely ignored the grammatical convention to refer to
Philip in the third person and merged the two of you. I do fully appreciate
your position in support of the GA to hold its own election.
Regards,
Joanna 

on 8/10/01 2:41 PM, Roberto Gaetano at ga_list@hotmail.com wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
>>> I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA
>> nominations,
>>> 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC
>> rules
>>> of procedure.
>>> I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view.
>>> Deadline August 15. ACTION all.
>> 
>> Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
>> nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not the GA's,
>> and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm afraid.
>> Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its own
>> Chair
>> was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the Chairmanship
>> of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during the last
>> Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens) seconded and
>> voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the
>> possible
>> exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the greatest
>> respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid consensus
>> building procedures that were undertaken within only recently during the
>> last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.
>> 
>> It is this kind of games playing by the NC that is counterproductive and
>> causes increased resentment within the GA. I regret this decision has
>> already been made and by a far greater range and number of affected
>> stakeholders than the NC can possibly muster in this very limited Task
>> Force. I would remind you that under the rules of cricket, when an over is
>> over, it is over and a losing player cannot ask for a rematch simply
>> because
>> he is captain of the team.
> 
> I am not sure to understand what you are talking about.
> I have stated officially my position on the election of the GA-Chair in
> Marina del Rey last year (see
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400.html#iss
> ues)
> 
> If you believe I think now differently, please provide evidence.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 

--
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