[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rules overruled was:Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules
Jeff and all DNSO'ers,
Yes. It is likely that Roberto made a very bad political faux pas. You
pointed it up nicely here Jeff. Again Kudos!
Jeff Williams wrote:
> Roberto and all,
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > Ellen,
> > You wrote:
> > >
> > >Mr. Gaetano: Au contraire. At the Names Council meeting on June 25,
> > 1999,
> > >the GA list was defined as the General Assembly of the DNSO. See
> > >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCsj-admin.html
> > >
> > Indeed.
> > But this decision has been overruled when the the GA has been redefined
> > (for the purpose of the nomination process) with a different set of
> > rules.
> Oh so now rules are overruled without the benefit of the membership
> voting or deciding if that is reasonable? If so, why have rules at all if
> they are overruled without due process?
> > >
> > >Yet the Names Council *unamiously* accepted on June 25, 1999 that the
> > GA
> > >existed and the mailing list (now email@example.com but previously
> > >firstname.lastname@example.org) comprised the General Assembly. So you need to take
> > up
> > >your arguments with the Names Council, not me. I am just restating the
> > >public record as I know it, although things are so convoluted that
> > >subsequent administrative meetings may have altered the decision noted
> > >above. Have they?
> > See above.
> > In fact, the rationale for this change of attitude by the NC was that
> > there are people who are participating to the DNSO but not subscribers
> > to the list, and that have to be accounted for.
> What NC? We have no legitimate NC yet. The rules were not followed
> in the election ending October 8th. So how could their be a legitimate
> > Regardless the current and/or past attitude of the NC about the best
> > definition to "bootstrap" the GA process, I believe that it is not wise
> > from our part not to have a strategy in terms of the definition of the
> > "membership" of the GA.
> > In the future, the GA-list will continue to be what it has been up to
> > now, i.e. a discussion list, but if ever any substantial decision will
> > be made by the GA, it will be done via a "membership" mechanism that
> > will not correspond 100% with the "list subscription" mechanism.
> Well this is at least a good idea. But certainly not a new one, it has
> both assumed and well documented that this has always been the case.
> > > <I snipped the question on terminology - it may be of lesser priority>
> > >
> > >
> > >This discussion should focus solely on the RIGHTS TO POST not on
> > whether or
> > >not the GA is a decision-making body. I object to using this mailing
> > list
> > >rules opinion poll to extend the discussion to a policy decision
> > regarding
> > >the rights inherent in GA membership.
> > I am not sure to understand this.
> > Where should the (very important, IMHO) issues about the GA Membership
> > be discussed if not on this list?
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail email@example.com
> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at