[ga] RE: BC Position Paper
Danny, and dear fellow GA members,
I stand by the statement that we need to open to new ideas, Danny. The document is a draft, out for comment to the BC constituency for their feedback and comments and discussion within the BC.
In fact, I have been saying that same thing--at this time of the evolution of ICANN, I think the BC needs to be open to ideas. You pointed out that I said it poorly, and you are correct in that. The Forum idea presented by Stuart would also result in a change in more than chair! My own personal perspective is that an evolutionary approach would be more optimal; but as I said in my statement at the mike in Accra, we don't yet fully understand what the forums would look like.
Hence, ... be open to new ideas.
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 2:00 PM
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: BC Position Paper
In your draft, "Toward a Business Constituency Position on ICANN
Restructuring and Evolution", you advise BC members to "Examine the proposed
"forum" structure to determine any improved benefits to the functioning of
policy development over the existing constituency model of the DNSO".
Your stated reason for such an examination, in editorial comments made to
Philip (that are still in the source code of the document) was: LET'S BE
OPEN TO NEW IDEAS; IT MIGHT BE TO OUR BENEFIT TO CONSIDER THIS, GIVEN WHAT WE
MAY FACE OTHERWISE WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER CHAIR.
Essentially what you are stating is... as long as we will no longer control
the NC, we might as well consider other options. This strikes me as a rather
self-serving approach to ICANN restructuring concerns.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html