RE: [ga] Questions for Joe Baptista / Eric Dierker, and why the GA list should be ended

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

To be honest, I don't see how the fact of having a closer check on
participation would necessarily exclude the folks you list.
Consider the following scenario.
If we had, as the LSE report suggests, a registry of GNSO participants, that
includes not only members of constituencies, but generally contributors to
to the policy making process, like WG participants, why not having the GA as
the list that includes all these folks?
I am not necessarily endorsing this point of view, but I am curious to hear
why this would be a good or bad idea.
Cheers,
Roberto
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: 19 September 2007 00:21
> To: George Kirikos; Avri Doria; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Questions for Joe Baptista / Eric Dierker, 
> and why the GA list should be ended
> 
> 
> Hello George,
> 
> Now I finally see what you are after... you're still harping 
> on the idea of a cross constituency list that will eliminate 
> the likes of Karl Auerbach, Abel Wiseman, Jefsey Morfin, 
> Debbie Garside and others that aren't members of the insiders 
> club at ICANN.
> 
> Your entire goal seems to be one of exclusion as in "Let's 
> get rid of the rabble so that only the privileged can hold 
> discussions."
> 
> How very elitist of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with 
> Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html
>  
>