Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

[Patrick <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>]

On Thu, 23 May 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, May 23, 2002, 2:53:29 PM, James Love wrote:
>
> > This is good news.  The GA can actually do things that allow people to
> > register their views, and one imagines this will make it difficult for the
> > ICANN BOD to claim consensus for the Lynn proposal or its close substitutes.
>
> No, all it has succeeded in doing is giving the BoD all the ammunition
> it needs to completely disregard and ignore the GA.
>
> Shame on you for abusing the GA in this fashion, and shame on the
> Chair for acknowledging privately that the motion was in fact out of
> scope of the GA, but not doing his job and putting a stop to this
> stupidity.

Shame on you for castigating the members of the GA from voicing their
opinions.

The results of the vote illustrate clearly that there is no consensus
among the GA for the ICANN BoD party line.

If that results in the current BoD disregarding the GA, then it is just
further proof that the claim that ICANN is some sort of consensus-based
organization is laughable.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/


--
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