[nc-intake] Fw: [council] Fw: [ga] status of the GA -Intake committee

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: 01 February 2001 01:45
Subject: [council] Fw: [ga] status of the GA -Intake committee


I believe the NC needs to clarify issues relating to the
election/appointment of the GA chair (see email below).  This matter was
discussed in LA, but we need to clarify the way forward.
I think it will be embarrasing for us if this matter is still outstanding at
the Melbourne ICANN meeting.
Could the intake committee consider scheduling this as an agenda item?

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA


> At 05:04 AM 1/30/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Greg,
> >>
> >>There has been virtually no activity on this list for the past month. I
> >>believe that the chair's term has expired. Could someone clarify
> >>and  update this, please?
>
> >>Indeed, my term has expired, and due to increasing work and personal
> >>committments started in 2001 I am looking forward to a relay.
>
>
> >I personally think that the GA should instead elect its chair directly,
> >except that this needs a change in the ICANN bylaws. As I said at the
> >ICANN meeting in Marina del Rey, I could wait for a couple of months to
> >allow the new procedure to be put in place.
>
> I remember the discussion in Marina Del Rey, which is why I brought it up.
> I may be missing something, but I haven't seen this addressed by the NC at
> all. As I recall, an interim solution was suggested, that the NC simply
> pass a resolution declaring their intent to appoint an elected candidate.
> Apparently there has been no discussion of this either, and it doesn't
> appear to be on the current NC agenda.
>
> >This said, thanks for having raised the issue, because I have the
> >impression that nothing moves, and that therefore we may found ourselves
> >at the next meeting at more or less the same point.
>
> Or worse.
>
> >What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the
> >matter?
>
> I would conclude that the GA is ill-defined, has no mandate to do
anything,
> and that the NC has neglected it's duties to "manage the
consensus-building
> process" in regards to the GA specifically.
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>
> --
> 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
>
>