Re: [ga] the DNSO website

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 07:51 AM 9/09/1999 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>On 9 Sep 99, at 12:09, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>> Dear GA Members
>> 
>> I am dismayed that this General Assembly has not only had its consensus
>> snubbed by the Board in Santiago by having its resolutions ignored, but
>> also that those who run the DNSO website have not found it necessary to
>> even mention these resolutions.
>
>Dear Joop,
>
>you are not exactly correct :-)
>
>The Board has _not_ ignored the resolution of the GA.
>The resolution was that the board should _concider_ your application again, 
>which was done. I was present , as you where.
>
Dear Siegfried,

The GA supported my motion that the Board put the IDNO petition on its
Santiago agenda.
The Board did not put it on its agenda. 
That's the snub I'm talking about.

The GA also resolved that the Board consider limiting the SO directors'
terms to one year.
(this was also decided against by the Board)

My point was: should the DNSO website not have made mention of these
resolutions?
Or is the will of its GA that irrelevant?


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org