Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Let me jump in here with just a little more than a me too.

You are so right in your analysis Chuck that it would make any 101 sophist proud.

Everything you advocate makes perfect sense except that it totally squeezes out
Jeff's' people.
It also squeezes out my lower level dotcommoners and it violates;
White Paper,
Green Paper,
Tax documents,
By-Laws,
Articles of incorporation,
All 3 contracts with the DoC,
US common law and Statutory provisions.

And I know this don't mean squat to many corporate dudes and dudettes but it also
violates a lot of
folks word of honor and Postals legacy.

And when you talk consensus and openness I always must throw in your net sol
domain policy list.

Hey you are doing a great job and your company owes you a raise.  It is just that
you are not doing a great job for ICANN and the GA.

Nice try.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Chuck and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:56 AM
> > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > Cc: [ga]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
> > >
> > >
> > (Text deleted)
> > >
> > > What is wrong with doing what basically happened to the other seven
> > > constituencies.  Approve the concept in principle and then you will
> > > find members and structure will come easily.  Also one could assert
> > > that as a constituency can change its charter at will from that
> > > initially approved why worry about what is there at the moment of
> > > application as it could change the next day?
> > >
> > Personally I would find nothing wrong with that approach; I just think that
> > it is extremely unlikely to happen.  The choices then are to sit around and
> > wait and complain that nothing happens or do something that might increase
> > the chances significantly.  A third alternative is to support the ALSC
> > recommendations for an At-Large SO that could possibly meet many of the
> > needs that an individuals' constituency might meet.
>
>   The problem with your third alternative is that the ALSC study did not
> and still does not meet the polled consensus or the stakeholders
> and interested parties.  Ergo Chuck, it cannot meet any of the
> needs of the stakeholders adequately as it leaves out the vast
> majority or stakeholders in their "Final Report"...
>
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > (Text deleted)
> > >
> > > DPF
> > > --
> > > david@farrar.com
> > > ICQ 29964527
> > >
> > --
> > 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

--
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