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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

what are you talking about?

On 19:47 04/10/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>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!

Positively? it is Philip's response to Danny's mails on his NC management :-)

But from any evil some real good may result:

>>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?

What? under what?

I am lost here.

--
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