Re: [ga] A motion for the GA

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

I hope that GA agrees to ask formally to ICANN board the IDNO constituency.

Best Regards
Vany



On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Roberto,
> 
> O.K. let's discuss the form of a joint motion in Yokohama.  You have professed
> also to be in favour of a constituency for individuals (Domain Name holders,
> that is) , and so have many others so I'm sure we can come up with a joint-
> or broad-platform text.  What I'm looking for in the first instance is a GA
> vote on the *principle* of adding such a constituency. 
> Not for a detailed consensus proposal to be submitted to the NC. (the NC's response
> is not crucial  anyway)
> To finally see the numbers in the GA for the *principle*  sends already a powerful
> message to the ICANN Board.
> Remember, it is not the GA or even the NC (which is the other/ rival constituencies)
> that has to decide about the recognition and admission to the NC of a new constituency.
> 
> It's only the ICANN Board.
> 
> Could you second a motion like this:
> 
> "I move that this General Assembly  of DNSO stakeholders send the following
> resolution to the ICANN Board:
> 
> The GA of the DNSO is not convinced that the currently approved constituencies
> of the DNSO adequately represent all stakeholders in the DNSO.
> We are therefore in  principle in favour of the addition of another constituency,
> a constituency of Individual Domain Name Holders, to the DNSO and we request
> the Board to seriously consider the recognition in principle of such a constituency,
> so that this constituency can then complete its self-organization in accordance
> with this recognition.
> In view of this same Assembly's resolution to request the Board to put the issue
> on it's agenda in Santiago, we would like to request the Board to place the
> issue on the agenda of its open meeting in Yokohama.
> 
> Such a message could be sent via the NC or directly.
>    
> Any other seconds? Would you second this, Roberto?
> 
>  --Joop--
> 
> >
> >What is wrong with my proposal to discuss the issue in Yokohama, where 
> >there's a specific point on the agenda, maybe take a consensus poll at 
> >the GA, and trim the proposal on the list to put it down in its 
> >definitive forn to NC?
> >
> Nothing really. Except that this is not really an issue for the NC.
> Unless you take the position that *everything* produced by he GA must be vetted
> by the Names Council, before the Board is allowed to see it.
> Personally, I am not of that view.
> 
> >About the discussion on this list, I confess I did not see much except 
> >the exchange of arguments (and ad nominem) on the IDNO as the one and 
> >only representative proposal for the Individual DN Holders Constituency,
> > but no effort whatsoever to broaden the consensus, to try to modify the
> > original proposal to compromise on different positions, in one word, to
> > progress.
> 
> That is true. We have not heard proposals for modification of the IDNO petition,
> only pro- and contra arguments.
> Mind you, that is how it should be. A constituency should be allowed to define
> itself. That definition can be accepted or rejected by the Board. If it is rejected,
> the Board should give proper reasons and indicate what changes it would wish
> to see, before it would recognize the constituency as representative of a genuine
> stakeholder interest.
> 
> 
> >Without effort of this type, the only possible vote is pro or against 
> >Joop.
> 
> Why? Because shooting at the messenger makes the messenger into the mesage?
> 
>  While this can be of some interest to a short number of 
> >personalities in this list, it is absolutely useless to make the cause 
> >of the Individual DN Holders progress, because whatever the result of 
> >the vote in the GA it is obvious to me that the proposal will not pass 
> >the NC.
> 
> See my above point on the relevance of the NC.
> 
>  And this not because the NC are bad guys, but because the 
> >proposal of IDNO as is (or was) is clearly not a consensus proposal.
> >
> 
> Only the vote will determine that.  Not the unsubstantiated objections of a
> few persistent and prolific posters. 
> This is the problem of all discussion lists. That is why voting is so important.
> 
> >The issue is then: how to move towards a consensus proposal? Either we 
> >find out a way to do it, or we can forget about the whole issue.
> >
> 
> Be patient, Roberto. Forgetting about "the whole issue" would be a mistake that
> would continue to haunt the DNSO.
> That said, there is now a motion on the table that can be transformed into something
> that can surely win wide acceptance and give you the consensus you think you
> need.
> Personally I have more than once expressed the opinion that non-acceptance by
> groups of stakeholders that have interests opposing those of Individual DN holders,
> makes the reasons for their reps' inclusion into the NC more compelling, not
> less.
> The NC composition is dictated by the Board, not by co-optation.
>  
> 
>  
> --Joop
> 
> --
> 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
-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3646
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
--
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