[ga] Re: Explicit Rulings or Vague Mandates ?

["watchdog" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Yes, but a very valid point most seem to miss is that The Names Council
serves the GA not the other way around. Whenever a nonprofit is to include
membership or the public at large in their decision making the Nonprofit
must do as the Membership and Public dictates not do as they please
regardless of process.

The GA has the power to go above ICANN's head directly to the Attorney
General of the State of California and express what the public wants on any
particular issue and the Attorney General can force ICANN to make it happen
or can replace them effectively into receivership appointing a new Board
that WILL serve the public interest.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>
To: "watchdog" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
Cc: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: Explicit Rulings or Vague Mandates ?


> Hi Chris
>
> I agree with both you and Joanna here.
>
> In fact I have said publicly, several times now, that the GA is
effectively
> hamstrung by the power of the NC and even the DNSO Secretariat.  Of
course,
> it is proper that we follow the ICANN bylaws but we should be careful of
> loose interpretations.
>
> My view is that the GA has the absolute right to determine its own destiny
> unless there is a clearly expressed and unequivocal rule passed as a
formal
> resolution by a meeting of the Names Council.  The GA cannot, and must
not,
> simply accept vague mandates from members of the NC generally that certain
> processes must be followed.
>
> I'd ask, therefore, can anyone indicate an explicit ruling which is (a)
> clearly relevant to the point being debated and (b) duly authorised by the
> Names Council?
>
> We'd need to have the official minutes of the relevant meeting posted on
the
> DNSO website.  At present I can't locate the relevant ruling.  Anyone?
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: watchdog <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived
>
>
> > They are making it up as they go along it appears. Whether it is a good
> rule
> > or not isn't even the question. It's whether or not it's even a rule.
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>
> > Cc: <jo-uk@rcn.com>; <dannyyounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived
> >
> >
> > > Roberto and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   I think that Joanna is correct.  I cannot find any rule for election
> > that
> > > requires 10 endorsements that is a voted upon rule for elections.
> > > I believe that Joanna ask you to provide such proof.  You haven't
> > > done so that has any official status.  Again, as Joanna points out and
> > > has been pointed out time and time again the games playing here
> > > in this area of procedure(s) is hampering progress unnecessarily.
> > >
> > > Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA
> > > > >nominations,
> > > > > > 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to
> the
> > NC
> > > > >rules
> > > > > > of procedure.
> > > > > > I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give
your
> > view.
> > > > > > Deadline August 15. ACTION all.
> > > > >
> > > > >Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
> > > > >nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not
the
> > GA's,
> > > > >and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm
> > afraid.
> > > > >Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its
> own
> > > > >Chair
> > > > >was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the
> > Chairmanship
> > > > >of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during
the
> > last
> > > > >Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens)
seconded
> > and
> > > > >voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the
> > > > >possible
> > > > >exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the
> > greatest
> > > > >respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid
> consensus
> > > > >building procedures that were undertaken within only recently
during
> > the
> > > > >last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.
> > > > >
> > > > >It is this kind of games playing by the NC that is
counterproductive
> > and
> > > > >causes increased resentment within the GA. I regret this decision
has
> > > > >already been made and by a far greater range and number of affected
> > > > >stakeholders than the NC can possibly muster in this very limited
> Task
> > > > >Force. I would remind you that under the rules of cricket, when an
> over
> > is
> > > > >over, it is over and a losing player cannot ask for a rematch
simply
> > > > >because
> > > > >he is captain of the team.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure to understand what you are talking about.
> > > > I have stated officially my position on the election of the GA-Chair
> in
> > > > Marina del Rey last year (see
> > > >
> >
>
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400.html#i
> > ssues)
> > > >
> > > > If you believe I think now differently, please provide evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Roberto
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>

--
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