RE: Re: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:52 PM
> Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 11:41:27 PM, you wrote:
> >> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:08 PM
> >> Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:55:05 PM, you wrote:
> >> >> The issue, the nature of what has been a "proposed"
> >> >> properly belonged on the GA list.
> >> > No, I don't think so. The creation of new consstituencies
> >> is strictly
> >> > the pervue of the ICANN BoD. The /ICANN/DNSO/GA has no
> power there.
> >> It most certainly is a subject here, Roeland, as Joop's incessant
> >> posts of late on this list about the IDNO and its "application" are
> >> evident proof of.
> > There is a huge difference between talking about the IDNO
> and carrying
> > on IDNO internal debate, on the GA list. I'm sorry that you
> can't see
> > that. Oh well...
> The question of a purported constituency taking unilateral action in
> removal of members is certainly not strictly internal matter of the
Charter provision are not the pervue of the ICANN. If it were then why
not let the ICANN write all the charters? No, the directive is for those
orgs to "self-organize". This directive clearly removes ICANN oversight
from the candidate orgs charter creation. Even further, it is an ICANN
function and not a DNSO one.
As for the last point, an organization can select or deselect in any way
they please. That is their right. While your arguments may apply to the
AtLarge membership. I don't believe that they apply to the
constituencies. Otherwise, why have constituencies (which is a question
that I've been asking all along)? I haven't liked the constituency idea
from the start. But, if that's the way they want to play the game ...
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html