DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

This move by the NC is shameful and wrong.  I think we (as the GA) ought to
draft a letter to bring this situation to a wider audience: the press,
politicians, etc.  In Greek there is an old saying: `Don't waste your time
knocking at a deaf man's door.'  Perhaps it's time we started knocking at other


Sotiris Sotiropoulos

"babybows.com" wrote:

> On 10 April, the Names Council decided to adopt the report of the NC Budget
> Committee which called for the suspension of the voting rights of
> financially delinquent constituencies after 180 days "until such time as the
> DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the varies late
> payment fees."
> Only one constituency (the NCDNHC) did not vote in favor of this resolution.
> One of their representatives, Milton Mueller, has argued "It is illegitimate
> and bad policy to link budgetary matters to representation rights. DNSO is
> supposed to be a representative body. Nothing in the ICANN by-laws or the
> White Paper suggests that representation hinges on paying some arbitrarily
> defined fee. Linking those two could cause ICANN serious legal and political
> problems. (That is not an idle threat)."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00219.html
> The current cost of participation for each of the seven DNSO Constituencies
> is $15,371.  It is clear that this sum represents a financial difficulty for
> one constituency, and may well represent a barrier to entry for other
> emerging constituencies (such as the long-awaited Individual's
> Constituency).
> At a time when ICANN projects $5,580,000 in revenues, and has readily
> authorized $450,000 for an At Large Membership Study (ostensibly to allow
> for enhanced community participation), I find it astounding that a decision
> has been made to embark upon a course of action that potentially puts
> member's voting rights in jeopardy.  Rather than choosing to ask for a
> Bylaws amendment that might provide for expenses reasonably related to the
> legitimate activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and
> operational costs), punitive measures have instead been adopted.
> This is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and should be a
> matter of grave concern to the membership of the General Assembly.  What is
> at stake is the prospect that certain domain name policy issues may be voted
> upon by a body that is no longer fully representative of the Internet
> community (in clear violation of White Paper principles).  The General
> Assembly should be taking a stand on this issue.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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 >>>