RE: [ga] NC BS

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I apologize for my empty post... I meant to include a clarification... which I'll do here.

The topic of the role of the GA was raised by both Thomas and by me earlier and the chair added it to the agenda.  There was a brief discussion, with more to come in next call.  There was also a discussion about the emergence of other constitutiencies in a different but related section.  Finally, I have heard from several non commercial users that they aren't really sure that they have a constituency at ICANN. I'm very interested in hearing from those of you in the non commercial constituency about whether you see enough diversity that you would support a situation which segregates non commercial users, individuals, and then advocacy organizations, such as those presently engaged in the non commercial constituency.  

 Michael, I am a little mystified by your individual comment and ask for clarification... Perhaps I am mistaken that you are active in the non commercial constituency. Where is the "none of us"... coming from... I could be wrong of course... and perhaps you aren't part of the non-comm constituency. That would then make it clearer what your personal concerns are.

I make one other point which I'd be interested in your views on.  Many of the constituencies, if not all... [I actually think it is all, but don't know about the registries] allow participation for non members. Most of all constitutions meetings are open and are attended by observers and interested parties.  

We didn't enough about this issue in the GA discussion, but you might draft a comment about what you think the GA should b e if you don't like this formulation and forward it via the chair/alt. chair.

This is work in progress.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:29 PM
To: DannyYounger@cs.com
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS


that would mean....none of us, right?

On Wed, 15 May 2002 DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> For those of you who were sleeping, the Names Council has passed this -- 
> "Recommendation 24 - general assembly. The gTLD policy development body 
> should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for 
> broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should be limited 
> to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy development 
> body."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot 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

--
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