[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules


The DNSO GA is specific to the DNSO, just as the ASO GA is specific to the
ASO and the PSO GA is specific to the PSO.  [Unlike the DNSO, the ASO and
PSO have defined their "General Assemblies" as annual open meetings, not as
standing entities.]  Conceptually, the DNSO GA is the aggregate of all
individuals involved in the DNSO.  None of the three Supporting Organization
GAs has any role in choosing the 9 At Large Directors on the ICANN Board,
just as none of the three SO Councils has any role in choosing the 9 At
Large Directors.  That's because the three SOs otherwise choose the other 9
ICANN Directors.

The 9 At Large Directors are to be chosen by an At Large Membership.  The
ICANN Board has defined the At Large Membership in Article II of the Bylaws
<http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#II>;  and adopted resolutions at
each of its last three meetings -- in Los Angeles
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-4nov99.htm#membership>, in
<http://www.icann.org/santiago/santiago-resolutions.htm#anchor21816>, and in
Berlin <http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#3>.  ICANN
sought funding from various sources to finance the launch of the At Large
Membership structure;  in November, the Markle Foundation announced that it
would contribute $200,000 to finance it
<http://www.icann.org/at-large/markle-proposal-21oct99.htm>.  Since then,
ICANN has hired a project manager and technical consultants to build the
back-end for membership registration and voting;  we're preparing to launch
the Membership Implementation Task Force to assist with recruitment and
outreach;  and the Board is preparing to resolve remaining membership &
election policy issues at its next meeting, in Cairo in March.  See

Nothing squirmy here.  It's all there in black-and-white, as it has been for
months, collected on the ICANN page for At Large Membership


[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Michael
[ Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[ Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:24 PM
[ To: Kent Crispin
[ Cc: ga@dnso.org
[ Subject: Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules
[ This is contrary to my understanding of the facts.  I may be wrong, but
[ I understood that membership in the GA was the primary means of
[ establishing membership in the voting pool for at-large Board members.
[ If this is not correct, could someone please point me to the relevant
[ document(s)?  I would be the first to admit that it is no longer possible
[ to keep up with the ways in which ICANN continually squirms on the subject
[ of what constitutes the general membership, so I am prepared to be
[ corrected on this.
[ On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
[ [...]
[ > It is you who has the apples and pianos.  There are *no* significant
[ > rights inherent in GA "membership", just as there are *no* significant
[ > rights inherent in IETF "membership".  In fact, "membership" is not well
[ > defined for either organization.  This is an important and fundamental
[ > concept, and until you understand it you will be shadow boxing with
[ > ghosts.
[ > 
[ Incidentally, this is also, as I understand it, not a true statement about
[ the IETF, since "membership" (established by attending 2 meetings in the
[ right time frame) entitles one to be be eligible to volunteer for a
[ nominating committee, selected at random from among the volunteers, which
[ will choose six IAB members. RFC 1601. The IETF thus has very important
[ input into the membership of the IAB, making the IAB responsible to the
[ IETF membership.  This is an important and fundamental concept, and until
[ you understand it....
[ -- 
[ A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
[ U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
[ +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.t
[                         -->It's warm here.<--