What is the benefit of saying "If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say"? Such comments seem to me to be unnecessarily rude and inflammatory. Is it possible to keep the conversations in this list to a slightly more professional level? The by-laws clearly state that orgs-of-orgs are allowed in plain English (see my last e-mail). However, if I am misreading them or if there is some other points that we should be considering, then lets discuss it. But PLEASE let's discuss these in an adult manner. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:22 PM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say, who am I to argue otherwise. R's, John
The other thing is that the no orgs-of-orgs language is in the ICANN bylaws. I entirely agree that it is arbitrary, and there are good reasons that they might want to change it. The bylaws are not written in stone, and we (the ALAC) have gotten the board to change language that didn't work in the past. But rather than doing that, does anyone really think that it is a good idea simply to ignore bylaws that we don't like?