Re: [ga] NC agenda and Recall of GA Chair

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 09:37 04/10/01, Philip Sheppard said:
>Some times these time limits are met, some times not - they are guidelines 
>not statutes, designed to help us not bind us.

Dear Philip,
You obviously are consistent about your fluid understanding of what NC, BC 
rules are. I am certain you will therefore put at the agenda of the next NC 
meeting that such an understanding should be generalized to the whole DNSO. 
This will save us a lot of time about rule setting and enforcement.
Jefsey



To all Members,
the NC Chair expressed that the NC puts to its agenda whatever is proposed 
to the Intake committee be a committed enough GA Member. This is actually 
not a rule (see the above) but is a real steap ahead since we have no vote. 
I therefore suggest that instead of proposing motions, we propose mails to 
the intake commitee. Since NC Intake Committee considers individual mails, 
it will consider more mails from severals. It will also permit keep some order.

To start with:
- I suggest Joop to prepare a mail about Individual Domain Name Holder 
Constituency I will co-sign?
- May be Eric could prepare a mail I would co-sign too about the Internet 
Users Constituency?
- I wish to see Jun Murai proposition to dialog with "alternative (sic) 
roots" to be acted upon.
- May be someone would propose better than me to have the 9 @large 
directors discussed?
- Also a clean shirt study about the Internet Security over the six coming 
months, resulting into an ICP-4 Internet Security document.
- that the .org TLD Manager could be related neither to NSI nor to the ICANN.
- the icann-sme could jointly propose with Kent Crispin that the SME 
representation would be discussed.

Jefsey











--
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