Re: [ga] Re: Channels to create an IC

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Channels to create an IC


> Danny and all assembly members,
>
> babybows.com wrote:
>
> > My personal view...
> >
> > Bill Lovell has raised the issue of the role of the Names Council with
> > regard to the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.
> >
> > Subsequent to the report of the Names Council DNSO Review Task Force,
the
> > Names Council put forth a Business Plan (20 Feb) which stated (under the
> > heading "Strategies"), "Establish an interim committee to propose terms
of
> > reference for an NC task force or other group to implement the
following:
> > 5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
> > contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
> > constituency."
> >
> > The last Names Council teleconference bore witness to the fact that none
of
> > the Names Council "Interim Committees" have yet established any "terms
of
> > reference" for any new project cited in the Business Plan - they are
> > "hoping" to get this work accomplished by Stockholm.
> >
> > Three months to pose the most basic "terms of reference"... This is yet
> > another example of the abject failure of the constituency structure
model.
>
>   I tend to agree here Danny.

As do I.
>
> >
> > That one set of constituencies can vote to threaten the voting rights of
> > other constituencies is still another example of the folly of this
> > structure.
>
>   This can become a problem, yes.

They do threaten it by not supporting it in spirit and by not supporting it
financially. I think that ICANN has to implement a policy whereby the
Constituencies that make money from individual users and domain name holders
should support their constituency financially. If a bottom up Consensus is
really sought by all then they should have no problem doing this.
>
> >
> >
> > I remind you that the majority of the members of the Review Working
Group
> > called for the abolition of this constituency structure (supporting the
> > initiative of Director Karl Auerbach to roll the constituencies back
into
> > the GA on a one-man-one-vote basis).

I was there and that is exactly what was supported, then ignored.

>
>   The only problem with this is that ICANN would need to change their
> bylaws accordingly.  That may be difficult to do in the current
atmosphere.
> In addition there is suppose to be an @large membership which would seem
> to mirror what Karl has in mind here.  It is also reasonable to assume
> that some of the current constituencies would indeed object on a number
> of valid grounds.

What "valid" grounds would that be? I'm sure you are correct. My question is
legitimate. You may be able to educate me a little here.

>
> >
> >
> > It's time to move forward on the basis of conclusions already reached.
> > Creating new constituencies does not solve our problems (especially if
they
> > can't afford to vote).  The Board has expressed its willingness to
consider
> > structural changes in the DNSO (resolution 01.28).  It is time to push
the
> > Names Council to get on with its job until such time as it is dissolved
and
> > replaced by a structure that better guarantees full representation.
>
>   Agreed in your conclusion here.  But your justification is a bit
skewed...
>
> >
> >
> > The only people that I have seen pushing for an Individuals'
Constituency
> > are the few members of the idno that will occasionally strike up a
> > conversation on their own list.
>
>   I have also brought this issue up as well and I am not a member of the
IDNO
> or IC.

As have I and I'm not a Member of the IDNO either.

>
> >  When Joop fails to post on this topic on
> > the GA list, no one else posts on this topic.  Where is the true measure
of
> > support?  The idno Chair has not even come forward to support the motion
> > recently put forth, and frankly has not even participated on the idno
list
> > since January.
> >
> > An effort has been made to discourage bringing up the past history of
the
> > idno.  This history is an issue that warrants discussion.
>
>   Agreed.

Thank you.

>
> >
> >
> > Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency is created,
the
> > idno will be the first organization in line seeking to represent
> > individuals.  If they can't get sufficiently organized to present their
own
> > petition, and have it accepted by the Board, then why should I, or any
of
> > you, want them representing us?
>
>   Well they wouldn't necessarily be representing "Us". But rather their
own
> members.

All organizations should have an equal opportunity to become the body that
represents the individuals. We can just propose that ICANN set up a way to
choose one but in the past ICANN has not shown the ability to have a
transparent process when making similar choices when they were given the
opportunity to do so with the introduction of new tlds.

We may have to make the choice ourselves then propose the constituency AND
who we have chosen to represent us. Whether that be the IDNO, another
organization, or the fact we have drafted a charter of our own and are
forming a brand new one.
>
> >  The channels are available to them under
> > the Bylaws to put forward their own petition.  Let them do so.  No one
is
> > stopping them.  Perhaps at some point they will actually create a new
> > petition for presentation, although I have seen no effort on their own
list
> > to do this.  I don't see why the GA should support their very
transparent
> > ploy.
>
>   I caution to characterize anything as a "Ploy" here Danny.  I don't know
that
> there is any ploy associated with the creation of an IC or IDNO to date.
>
> >
> >
> > This is not about individuals having a voice, this effort is directed at
> > getting idno members seats on the Names Council.   Their website already
> > indicates who those NC members will be:  Joop Teernstra, Dinesh Nair,
Dennis
> > Schaefer.
>
>   Yes they were duly elected.  So this would be normal or natural.

Agreed. Nothing inappropriate with their attempts to do that. Whether the GA
decides to support that effort or another is to be decided here. If the GA
chose to support the IDNO I suspect that the offer of support to the IDNO
would come with stipulations and provisions that allow that organization to
change certain things in order to qualify for that support. It would be the
same if the GA chooses to support any existing organization.

Setting forth parameters to have met before gaining the support of the GA is
a normal request. If an organization chose not to make those changes then
they would not have the GA's support. Simple. But one of the advantages of
choosing an existing org is the fact a lot of work has already been done
there and that puts us ahead. If there is some bad history within any
particular org, can't setting some parameters to qualify the support we give
them solve those issues?

>
> >
> >
> > Joop's motion will be voted on this coming week.  He and I will jointly
> > agree on appropriate language for the ballot question as we are at odds
on
> > this issue.  While I do not support his motion, the General Assembly
will
> > make the decision, and I will put forward the position of the GA to the
> > Board.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> 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.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>

Thank you,

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

--
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