Re: [ga] BC revision

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Well phrased and articulated observations.  I hope that they will
be read carefully and given serious consideration.  Well done here Jefsey!

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Fellow GA,
> Philip Sheppard asked me why I had informed the GA bypassing my colleagues
> of the BC. This is a good question I responded in detail copy to the BC
> Members and I told him that I will report to the GA.
>
> I suppose it will help you understanding better, the same as your comments
> may help Philip understanding better: I do not think anyone is fighting
> anyone: but good and wise coments in here like Roealnd's, Joanna's, WXW's,
> Andy's, Patrick's, Jeff's etc.. may really help Philip.
>
> 1. There are enough people IMHO illegitimately denied BC Membership and too
> much control on the BC mailing list for me not to consider that the GA is a
> second BC list. It also happens that top managers of BC Member reads the GA
> to be informed on the BC, not being copied the BC mails by their employee.
> I say them "hello!"  (don't be afraid I will not betray you!).
>
> 2. BC has published on the GA that the BC issues I called upon the NC to
> help settling would be addressed internally by the Members. No internal
> debate occured. The new Charter voids parts of them.
>
> 3. the new charter plans to revamp the DNSO menbership creating needs for a
> cross-constituency dialog which can only occur at the NC - long time to go
> - and be preparted at the GA. It should have been to Philip to initiate it
> on the GA.
>
> A key point of interest on the GA is the end of the SME reference and the
> suppression of the SME Committee. This obviously calls for an SME
> Constituency. I will publish a mail on this.
>
> 4. But mainly the published calendar is very short and the DNSO public
> review period has necessarily begun.
>
> Vanny has certainly a good point about internal matters to be dealt
> internally with. But this draft is not a draft. It falls in the "draft to
> be urgently agreed as a permanent document due to a long prepared in
> extremis" ICANN document collection.
>
> Philip tells he is surprised that I am surprised because the charter change
> has been extensively annouced. This is true the change of charter has been
> alluded to for a while - no one voted a change however nor discussed it
> until we learn that after a short period for comments a text will be edited
> and affirmated. I suppose that if that text has been long prepared it
> cannot be a draft anymore.
>
> Now my general comment is that BC Members - no more than any Constituency
> Members - dont own the BC constituency (sorry Andy they cannot sell them!).
> But that BC Members - as any other Constituency's Members - have duties
> towards the World's Businesses community they represent and towards the
> Global Internet Community represented in part by the GA.
>
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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