No ligetimat Chair to:Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 02:18 26.01.00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> > > At 15:36 25.01.00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > >
>

- snip old stuff -

>
> >Do you plan on authoring the next version yourself,
>
> No, I hope not to.
>
> >  and if so, in what
> >timeframe?
>
> I would expect a revision of the mailing list rules in 3 months or so, when
> the voting procedures are in place.

  How and who decides what these "Voting Procedures" to which you refer
are to be?  You perhaps?

>
>
>

- snip more old stuff -

>
> >
> >While I don't disagree with such a requirement, I'd like to know where
> >such a requirement is written. Or are you stating that it is your belief
> >that this should be a requirement of elected officials?
>
> I would feel delinquent if I did not read the official mailing lists of the
> bodies where I am a member; I read the GA list, the IETF list and the IAB
> list pretty religiously.

 Very commendable of you.  To bad it hasn't carried over here.

>
>
> Since there are no written rules for GA officials (yet), I don't think it's
> written down anywhere.

  Did you forget the DNSO Bylaws or the ICANN Bylaws as well as the
White Paper and the MoU?  Seems that you have.

>
>
>

-Snip more old stuff -

>
> >
> >Allowing a single SAA autonomous censuring authority, and free reign in
> >deciding the length of a suspension is an open invitation for abuse.
> >Please consider the case of a "rogue" SAA, or an SAA that is the close
> >personal friend of someone whose conduct they are reviewing for possible
> >censure.
>
> Remember that the GA Chair can fire a SAA at will, so we require two levels
> of corruption.

  You just said above that there are not rules for the DNSO.  If so how can
this statement be accepted?  I would also add we currently do not have
an legitimate Chair as you well know Harald.

>
> One reason for me wanting at least 2 SAAs capable of acting independently
> is that I think it best to avoid having a SAA judging whether or not to
> censure a member for attacks against himself.

  ROFLMAO  I don't believe this one of a second, Harald.  Others might.
But I sure don't!

>
> (again not being absolute - or we would find people putting insults against
> all SAAs into their .sig file, thinking that this would render them
> invulnerable.....)
>
> One reason for me wanting to not require 3 or more SAAs is that I don't
> know if we have that many volunteers.
> (Volunteers: Email Roberto ASAP, please.....)

  Why E-Mail Roberto?  How and why would this be a requirement or
reasonable suggestion?

>
>
>                        Harald A
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no

Regards,

--
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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208