Joe Baptista wrote: >From: "J. Baptista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Nomination of Nii Quaynor > >On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >> >I completely understand the pressures you were under. I was annoyed by >> >the fact a decision was reached by the assembly, and under Robert's that >> >should have been it, as respect the IDNO vote. But the lawyers forced the >> >chair to reconsider the motion made and voted on. The scandal is the fact >> >it happened. >> >> What's the time track (or reference or whatever Real calls it_) for that ? > >I don't know myself, but would appreciate getting that data myself to >review. You can: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/ The GA came with the following resolution: "That the General Assembly ask the ICANN Board to consider the IDNO's application for recognition as a constituency at its Thursday, 8/26/99 meeting. " I will link the text of this resolution to our idno website, under /santiago.htm I have no recollection that the Chair "reconsidered" anything. It is just that we recently heard (on the GA list) the somewhat forced interpretation of the bylaws that the NC has the right to filter such a resolution before passing it on to the Board. If this becomes standard practice, it becomes even more critical to get broad representation on the NC. I would strongly prefer a "real" GA. --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of the Cyberspace Association, the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
