DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

At 07:43 29/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or direction for the
> names council to be involved in the formation process of any constituancy
> but rather a directive that the process be one of self-organization by any
> prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
> handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition is facilitated
> interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.

Formally, I can only agree with Ken here. 
Unfortunately the Board has seen fit to dodge the issue time and again.

The GA of the DNSO has requested the NC to create a working group for DNSO
I understand that this is now in the process of implementation.

The danger here is, that the (probably endless) discussions in such a WG
would just provide the excuse to the Board to further postpone any decision
on the petition of the IDNO constituency that has been in sitting there
for over a year.

Ken is right that it is inappropriate for the other constituencies to get
involved in the facilitation (or rather the opposite) of the entry of a new
What the constituencies *can* do is air the consensus of their members
about it. 
The NCDNHC has done so with several resolutions.

What gets me is that we hear this pronouncement from the NC Chair only now
many months after this issue has been raised and discussed here in public,
with the GA chair himself opposing arguments just like Ken's above.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.

This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>