Re: [ga] Re: Suspension of Voting Rights
Danny and all remaining assembly members,
> I am well aware of the specific terms approved. Please do not presume that
> I am speaking out of ignorance. I am also aware that this NC action is not
> consistent with the ICANN ByLaws, and that a request for clarification of
> such, posted to Louis Touton by Philip Sheppard on 13 April, and reiterated
> by Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales on 21 April, has still gone unanswered.
> Your constituency and others have enormously profited from participation in
> the ICANN process, and yet rather than seeking solutions which facilitate
> greater participation and reduce barriers to entry, you have elected to
> pursue a punitive policy which stands at odds with White Paper principles.
> As a reminder, the White Paper calls for "input from the broad and growing
> community of Internet users". How does your solution serve to advance the
> needs of our growing community?
It has been obvious for some time now that ICANN has not cared much
about the White Paper principals or the MoU, for that matter.
> Is there a fear to ask the ICANN Board for funding? There have certainly
> been many changes made to the ByLaws in the past, and asking for a change
> that would allow for expenses reasonably related to the legitimate
> activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and operational
> costs) is certainly preferable to a course of action that would potentially
> disenfranchise segments of our membership.
THe ICANN BoD and the NC have consistently acted in ways to
disenfranchise stakeholders. This is just on more of many such actions
that it has decided to take.
> This "reticent action" that you describe seems to place a higher priority on
> the "need" to fund a professional Secretariat, than on the "need" to ensure
> the "rights" of your fellow participants.
> You are blessed with ample funding; others that seek to join in the ICANN
> process are not. Are you advocating that only those with sufficient funds
> have a place at ICANN's table?
It would seem obviously so, yes...
> I am of the view that if we are a part of
> ICANN, then ICANN should be underwriting all of our expenses. If we are not
> a part of ICANN, then perhaps we should be invoicing ICANN for policy
> guidance to the same degree that ICANN is invoiced for legal advice.
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html