<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Consensus
- To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [ga] Consensus
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=Gi/mlR8A93Jc62IEh2ZNeYscOO2ZGA4B22Ucq6xunniOZNAtW+eiO/LbF9xcfhBnItHyUfZ/6Q58Up0wXCL3zwAijfyFPHeeCM3D5z2nE47lDtN6Z7CZsNad/OYZnUHZn5JJU09qmd2f3fB2J24S9Kn74GNjfjJ1lKKiKig/Fz4=;
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There appears some misunderstanding of my direction as far as consensus and the immediate path of the GA.
I do not think that every way out voice, that I cannot figure out, needs to be considered as we move toward consensus or voting. I try to make it very clear that I am not considering a point of view. It would appear normal that someone besides the voice in the wilderness would correct me if I were wrong. And so to date I feel confident we have moved with prudence.
As far as the GA's future goes, it is my intention to move through the proper channels to get it as legitimate as possible. And at that point to move it to a point of true contribution to ICANN. It is my anticipation that this contribution will be with a slant to the protection of and furtherance of the rights of the User and the Registrant.
There is no good reason why the GA cannot be instrumental in the forming of constituencies. I myself have authored and published, based on old IDNO docs, the template for the IU charter and petition.
I will make two positive changes. 1. I will try to read posts by those I heretofore quit reading. (but someone is going to pay my therapist bill;-)
2. I will try to be more forthright in expressing my intentions.
Eric
As Chair
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|