RE: [ga] Procedure.

[jefsey <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 00:46 16/05/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>I will not be able to support the first motion because this is not the 
>right approach for the GA of the DNSO.

This is a pure statement not conforted by a bylaw quotation. All the quotes 
I have seen so far are based upon a far too restrictive reading to be 
accepted. However what is realy opposed if that if 30 people votes it obver 
50 (small figures) it is represented as a result of the GA. This is really 
a "BC" vision of democracy: 'please tell me who will vote for you, so I may 
see if there is a reason for a vote"

I have no problem in havnig the motion distributed as "signed by x Members 
of the DNSO/GA" ...

>There are many reasons, including the points made by Darryl.  And, in 
>addition, this  motion is very US centric in its approach to redress-- 
>which is exceedingly ironic.

This is a good point. But it is not that a problem as the mission statement 
is to internatinalize the ICANN what has not been done. So resuming a 
proper management is to internationalize.

>My personal view is that the GA has been seriously diverted from providing 
>comments on the White Papers.

Glubs? on the white papers? Is that not what it does, "calling back to the 
withe paper".

>However, leaving that aside, the second motion is much more appropriate in 
>its focus.  While I have some problems with some of its phrases, it is 
>focused toward providing comments toward the right "recipient" -- ICANN.

True, a proper debate would have had it addressed to the DoC via the 
ICANN.  There does not any real difference
jfc

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02