[ga-abuse] Fwd: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

Personal attack, please take appropriate action.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--



The following is a forwarded message:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From:    Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@worldatlarge.org>
To:       <>
CC:      ga@dnso.org
Date:    Friday, May 24, 2002, 12:35:49 AM
Subject: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN  Reform, May 2002
--====----====----====----====----====----====----====----====----====----===--
Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "William X Walsh" <william@wxsoft.info>
>To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
>Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
>Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN
>Reform, May 2002
>
>
>>Thursday, May 23, 2002, 10:06:08 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>
>>>On 01:20 p.m. 24/05/2002 +1000, Dassa said:
>>>
>>>>Totally false.  The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises the
>>>>question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.
>>>>
>>>It may still raise that question for you  and Mr Walsh, but *all* GA
>>>
>>"Mr Walsh" doesn't vote in inappropriate votes that violate the
>>charter
>>
>
>Interesting ( to me, but probably not many other GA members)that you keep
>using such words.
>There is no part of the "charter" (- I think you mean the bylaws? ) that
>limits the activity of the GA.  Can you point to that part of the charter
>that is expressly "violated" ?
>

I believe Mr. Walsh may be suffering from IDNO flashbacks brought on by 
his tour of duty there not long ago...  Kind of like John Rambo in the 
movie First Blood, Mr. Walsh is still fighting his "Charter" war.  Sad. 
 Truly sad, and kind of demented.  But, anyone who keeps an amateur 
investigative journal on Jeff Williams a.k.a Bob Davis etc., is IMHO 
actually a sadder wretch than the subject of his/her 'research'.
  

>>and are outside the charter dictated role of the DNSO GA.
>>
>
>This is a slightly different point. You appear to believe that the charter
>limits the activity of the GA in the same way that some company laws makes
>"ultra vires" those activities of the company that are not expressly
>authorised in its Articles of Association. My own jurisdiction, and many
>others abandoned this concept in company law many years ago.
>
>Do you believe that the "charter" of the GA should be amended, to expressly
>include the limitation you assert?
>

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos


--
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


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
End of original message