Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

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

Eric and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I agree with Jeff's point of view here but I wonder if we cannot reach some
> middle ground for consensus.

  I honestly don't believe there is any middle ground here Eric.
The MoU and the White Paper are pretty clear on this.
Either any and all stakeholders, including stakeholder/usres
have a right to participate, and that they are proportionately
represented on the ICANN BoD without restriction or
you do not have a legitimate At-Large.

>
>
> I am an absolutist when it comes to contractual and promises, but should not
> those of us working for the little guy try to find some compromise of consensus
> area that works?
>
> When does a side have no right or rite to demand a change toward a better
> position?
>
> Answers anyone?
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff William's 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

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