Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH, 2

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

My reading of the by-laws and other documents indicates a proper procedure in
place but a complete failure to abide by it on behalf of ICANN.  The string
along this line from Joop and failure to ever make the petition public is
exemplary.

Sincerely,

Greg Burton wrote:

> At 11:30 AM 1/15/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >Do I have to resubmit all the arguments against constituencies, under the
> >correct headers?
>
> Of course not :)
>
> It seems to me we have three separate issues:
>
> 1. If constituencies are the electors for the NC - which they currently are
> - the creation of specific constituencies, like the proposed IDNH
> 2. If constituencies are the electors for the NC, how should constituencies
> be created?
> 3. Whether or not constituencies should continue as the electors for the NC
>
> I'm suggesting that work on creation of specific constituencies be moved to
> the GA list, but that doesn't affect 2 or 3. It seems to me that if we can
> focus on those two issues - in separate threads - we won't get as confused
> about which is which. None of that means reposting arguments already made,
> unless of course they need to be referenced currently.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard