[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] NC violations of ICANN charters


You wrote:
> >
> >....and, if my memory of events is still somewhat accurate, the NC at
> >first didn't want a mailing list to be representative of the GA.  And
> >once it was clear that it would be, they did not want the 
> IFWP list to
> >be that expression.
> >
> ...further checking on this reveals at least Mr. Sola's motives for
> not wanting the IFWP list to be the GA:
>      "...the managment of the IFWP cannot be trusted"

What I don't understand is why the GA should delegate the discussion to a
different list. I agree with Javier (and I have the impression not being
alone in this) that the GA discussion should be held in a mailing list that
is chartered for this purpose, i.e. the ga@dnso.org list.
The purpose of the IFWP list is a different one, i.e. general discussion on
Internet matters, as related to the White Paper, of which the DNSO
activities is only a part of.

Of course, nothing prevents IFWP folks to join the GA list. And in fact I
have the impression that there is more debate going on on the latter than on
the former. So, where's the problem?