Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:18 5/11/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 13:15 05/11/2000 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review
>> >committee on whether or how the At Large representation should continue -
>> >http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5 - is written into
the
>> >BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]
>> >
>>
>>Harald,
>>
>>What if it's deliberate?
>
>In order to achieve what? A tradition of instability of the bylaws?`
>
Harald,
 to some such a tradition (the longer you get away with it, the more it
becomes a tradition) has turned out to be useful. :-)

The DoC approved Bylaws contained an equal number of @large directors to
achieve a balance in representation.
This was the product of a negotiation process.

How convenient that later the goal posts can be moved without the need for
renewed negotiation.

Will the Board also  "amend" the inconvenient Art VI-B section 3 a and d?

ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be
excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
participation in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate to
the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and
consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board shall
recognize a Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in
(b) below) by a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to
exist for purposes of these Bylaws.
…
(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be
posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may
create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own
motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion
it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final
decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing
all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or
recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it will notify
the names council and will consider any response to that notification prior
to taking action.


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

--
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