RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried and we failed.
The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the wishes of the
GA. That record is clear.

2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there is, show it to
me.

3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN BoD is the
sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.

Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. However, this is
the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You are usually not
this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are feeling too well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:20 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> Assembly call to
> change seating rule)
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> > 
> > Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?
> 
> The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and 
> balances on 
> *any* elected body -- if you don't like what your representatives do, 
> you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.  
> That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery about the 
> NC in this regard.
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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
> 
--
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