[ga] Explicit Rulings or Vague Mandates ?

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Chris

I agree with both you and Joanna here.

In fact I have said publicly, several times now, that the GA is effectively
hamstrung by the power of the NC and even the DNSO Secretariat.  Of course,
it is proper that we follow the ICANN bylaws but we should be careful of
loose interpretations.

My view is that the GA has the absolute right to determine its own destiny
unless there is a clearly expressed and unequivocal rule passed as a formal
resolution by a meeting of the Names Council.  The GA cannot, and must not,
simply accept vague mandates from members of the NC generally that certain
processes must be followed.

I'd ask, therefore, can anyone indicate an explicit ruling which is (a)
clearly relevant to the point being debated and (b) duly authorised by the
Names Council?

We'd need to have the official minutes of the relevant meeting posted on the
DNSO website.  At present I can't locate the relevant ruling.  Anyone?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: watchdog <watch-dog@inreach.com>
To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived


> They are making it up as they go along it appears. Whether it is a good
rule
> or not isn't even the question. It's whether or not it's even a rule.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>
> Cc: <jo-uk@rcn.com>; <dannyyounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived
>
>
> > Roberto and all assembly members,
> >
> >   I think that Joanna is correct.  I cannot find any rule for election
> that
> > requires 10 endorsements that is a voted upon rule for elections.
> > I believe that Joanna ask you to provide such proof.  You haven't
> > done so that has any official status.  Again, as Joanna points out and
> > has been pointed out time and time again the games playing here
> > in this area of procedure(s) is hampering progress unnecessarily.
> >
> > Roberto Gaetano 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#i
> ssues)
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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