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

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>
>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
>

A lot of bad things can be said about the GA, but I am sure that nobody can 
deny us the "creativity in criticism".
In the past, I have spent a lot of time in explaining to the NC Chairs 
(current and former) that the GA resents the fact that "they" are not always 
open to the requests from the "rank and file".
Apparently the NC has been reacting positively, so after having criticized 
the NC for not being open to GA petitions, we rabidly (sorry for the typo, I 
meant "rapidly") switchover and criticize the opposite. Well done!


>
>
>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.
>


And how can the paralysis of the NC under a flow of proposals help the DNSO?

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