ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] List Rules

  • To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Hugh Dierker'" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules
  • From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:04:11 +0200

Thanks, Danny, that could be really helpful in trying to sort this issue
out. At least for me.
RG



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:49
> To: Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
>
>
> Hello Eric,
>
> As much as I like motions, we would in a better position if
> we could draft an issues paper laying out the pros and cons
> of the AGP.  I note that the registrars have already created
> a powerpoint on the benefits of the AGP -- you can view it by
> clicking on the attachment at this url:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html
>
> By this way, this powerpoint was quite convincing (at least
> to Board director Steven Goldstein that referenced this
> presentation at the Washington JPA session), so our
> counterpoint arguments must necessarily be of equal or
> greater caliber if we are to convince both the GNSO and the
> Board over the objections of the registrars.
>
> regards,
> Danny
>
> --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > The list has run along very smoothly for several months. The main
> > reason is voluntary compliance with the rules. Once this concept
> > breaks down so does the list. We are not talking about
> individual one
> > time lapses. For constant repeat violations we must stand
> strong and
> > enforce the rules.
> >
> >   We are at a point for the first time in months, that the list is
> > coalescing into the form of producing a statement/motion. The AGP
> > issue seems to have come to a head and more formal resolution
> > procedures may be appropriate. I believe it is at a motion
> stage with
> > 4 seconds. If the desire is to move forward in a constructive
> > effective matter, we should hear that from the members.
> >
> >   Eric
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> No Cost - Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now. Sweet
> deal for Yahoo! users and friends.
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text1.com





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>