RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Denying a proposal because one doesn't like the people supporting it is not
politics of any honorable variety. It is slimey, subjective, and personal.
It also doesn't serve the best interests of the ICANN, in the long run.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:04 AM
> To: philip.sheppard@aim.be; DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org;
> pdeblanc@usvi.net
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request
> 
> 
> Peter:
> The self-organization took place back in Spring 1999. 
> An IDNO organization has been around since then, the
> powers that be just didn't like the people behind it. 
> Can we agree that when _another_ such proposal comes 
> before the NC that it will be treated less politically?
> 
> >>> "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> 08/07/01 09:19AM >>>
> Greetings:
>  
> Please refer to Article 3, and section 3 (d) of the ICANN bylaws at
> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI 
>  
> The (proposed) new constituency must self-organize, probably produce a
> document containing at least a statement of purpose, or mission
> statement, and some basic bylaws defining membership.
>  
> Once the (proposed) new constituency has self-organized, it 
> may petition
> the Board for recognition.
>  
> My question is, has such self-organization, and production of 
> documents
> taken place?
>  
> Peter de Blanc
>  
> (Please note that I support the idea of some kind of individual domain
> name holder's constituency)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Philip
> Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:21 AM
> To: DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org 
> Cc: gcarey@carey.cl; aaus@MPAA.org; cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com;
> Paul.Kane@reacto.com; erica.roberts@bigpond.com; kstubbs@dninet.net;
> vany@sdnp.org.pa; yjpark@myepark.com; mueller@syracuse.edu;
> greg_ruth@yahoo.com; tony.ar.holmes@bt.com; harris@cabase.org.ar;
> ck@nrm.se; Richard.Tindal@neulevel.biz; rcochetti@verisign.com;
> grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz; mcade@att.com; orobles@nic.mx;
> Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr; pdeblanc@usvi.net 
> Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request
> 
> 
> Danny, 
> thank you for your reply to my request for a document summarising the
> rationale and level of support for an individual's constituency. I can
> understand your temptation in continuing to copy in the entire NC but
> would urge you to stop unless those individuals actively ask 
> to be kept
> directly informed. A copy to nc-review would seem more appropriate.
>  
> You cited general references to the CONCEPT in the report of WG review
> with which I am familiar. You also cite a proposal on the CONCEPT made
> by Karl Auerbach. Did this ever get to a vote? You also cite various
> votes to questions of CONCEPT in each case with votes cast numbering
> from around 20 to 90 persons.
>  
> What would be useful is to know if there has been a 
> SUBSTANTIVE proposal
> addressing the key issue of representation, and if so what level of
> support that proposal received.
>  
> Philip
>  
>  
> 
> 
> --
> 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