RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] CIG and Individuals

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, I assume your comment was with respect to whether there should 
be something in the rules to cover appeals of constituency decisions. 
I could certainly live with a general rule such as that but I am not 
convinced that the GNSO has the mandate to make such a rule, or 
enforce it. I would think that this would be a Board-level decision 
(or a group that it explicitly identifies to take on that  role).
Alan

At 12/05/2009 09:37 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Unless of course we consider the Board's GNSO Improvements
> Recommendations as top down rules.  Personally, I see them as guidelines
> for which we need to develop implementation plans, but they are
> guidelines I don't think we can ignore.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:16 AM
> > To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] CIG and Individuals
> >
> >
> > Alain, your concern is null and void.
> > you just said you wanted a home for "a new class of
> > entrepreneurs that the web economy has created".
> > By that you mean entrepreneurs who have "demonstrated
> > commercial intent".
> > I believe I explained the BC test as being "a demonstration
> > of commercial intent".
> > Our philosophy is one of inclusion.
> >
> > And I do agree with you, we do not need top-down rules from
> > unaffected third parties telling others how to run a constituency.
> > There are more pressing matters for the OSC.
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >