Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences
Wednesday, November 29, 2000, 10:07:41 PM, you wrote:
> At 09:47 PM 11/29/00, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>Wednesday, November 29, 2000, 4:48:56 PM, you wrote:
>> > The danger here is, that the (probably endless) discussions in such a WG
>> > would just provide the excuse to the Board to further postpone any decision
>> > on the petition of the IDNO constituency that has been in sitting there
>> > for over a year.
>>My understanding is that the call is for a WG on the formation of an
>>individual's constituency, not on the IDNO petition to have itself
>>declared a constituency.
> That is completely correct. And it is a call for a GA working group, NOT a
> DNSO working group, and not an NC working group.
Unfortunately the GA doesn't appear to have the ability in the bylaws
to form a working group. It appears only the NC has that ability and
they do it on behalf of the DNSO.
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