Re: [council] Transfers TF

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Danny:

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> 
> Phil Sheppard has cited the fact that an ALSO is a proposal not a body.
> Let's talk about facts.
> 
> 1.  An ICANN Board resolution [01.127] that Individual Internet users have a
> significant stake in ICANN's activities and should have the opportunity for
> representative participation in ICANN is a fact.  Sheppard's refusal to
> appoint a registrants' representative to this Task Force is at odds with the
> collective will of the ICANN Board that calls for sustained involvement of
> interested individuals in ICANN policy and decision-making.

Not all Individual Internet users are Registrants and not all
Registrants
are Individuals.  

Now, talking about myself as Registrant (vany.org). I don't deny that
Joanna
has merits as Phlip recognized in a previous e-mail.  However, why I
don't feel
Joanna represents me as a Registrant?  In all cases I would feel that
Joop Represents better
to the me as an Individual Registrant.  But maybe there are people that
feels that
Joanna represents them well.  And this is one problem already because
departing from the previous
facts, no one can claim right now a representation of the Registrant
Community or Individual Registrant
Community as such.  

But the problem is that although ICANN recognized in its
resolution that "Individual Internet users (including Individual
Registrants) have a significant
stake in ICANN", the truth is that ICANN Board hasn't officialized yet
such structure inside ICANN and/or DNSO

You know that I am a supporter, since I knew about the idea in 1999, of
IDNHC in Santiago
de Chile, and how I would love that IDNHC has officially its
constituency inside DNSO.  However
since this didn't happened yet, then how can we, the NC, appoint someone
representing
an structure that doesn't exists in an organized way inside ICANN?  

How can we think in appoint Joanna as Registrants Community
representative, when, as far as I know
the Registrant Community of Non-Commercial is already represented by the
NCDNHC, the Bussines
Registrant Community is already represented in the BC, even Intelectual
Property interests 
protecting the businesses, organizations and individuals that holds
trademarks and are Registrants are
represented here.  Tell me, how can I call someone representative of the
Registrant Community in general?

And if your are recalling the participation of Individual Internet users
(as recognized by ICANN), I suppouse
that ICANN was talking about the At Large, and, in the spirit of such
recognition, then why not appoint an At Large
Director to the TF on Transfers?  At least they were elected officially
and they hold a representation of such
Individual Internet users since this is the spirit of At Large
membership.

In the light that still At Large Directors exist officially and they are
the ones
that represents the Individual Internet users inside ICANN, and taking
in count that, in my interpretation, the intention of Danny Younger
proposal of appoint a representative of Registrant Community is that the
DNSO reafirm the same recognition
that ICANN Board made about Individual Internet users great stake, I
propose the following:

1.  One At Large director be appointed to the Task Force on Transfers
representing such Individual Internet users.

I hope this proposal be acceptable for all parties involved in the
benefit of the work of Task Force on Transfers.

Best Regards
Vany














> 
> 2.  Our Bylaws grant rights to "interested parties" for input and
> participation in the substantive work of the DNSO.  That is a fact.  Phil
> Sheppard has earlier indicated that a TF may consult experts and interested
> parties, and it is a matter of precedent that the UDRP task force is
> populated by such interested parties.  If representatives of arbitrators can
> sit on a task force, then by what right does he deny registrants the same
> opportunity?
> 
> 3.  Sheppard argues that it is premature to consider Joanna's request in
> light of the absence today of an Individuals Constituency in the DNSO.   The
> fact is that Sheppard and his BC stooges are solely responsible for denying a
> long-needed voice for individuals in the DNSO.  It is not premature to
> consider Joanna's request, the request is both timely and appropriate and
> within the established NC guidelines that Sheppard himself has authored.
> 
> The pigheaded obstinacy demonstrated by BC reps well illustrates that they
> are not fit to Chair a task force as important as the Transfers TF that calls
> for consensus-building.  This my-way-or-the-highway attitude is inappropriate
> for those that seek to lead this body forward.   It is time to call for the
> removal of Marilyn Cade as interim chair and to convene an election for the
> chairmanship of this group.  I would add that it is also high time to censure
> Phil Sheppard for his flagrant disregard of our Bylaws.
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa

Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org