Re: [ga] Joop's motions

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

On the history of developing an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency,
(IDNHC) Danny and I have reached the same place by somewhat different
routes.
(He has been working in the system longer than I have, and knows the
ropes better.)
We also reach comparable conclusions, which is that Joop and the IDHO
are
working under a false premise.

But first, since from Florida we know how voters can get confused, I would
strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be given the term
"Individuals Constituency = IC."  If this group has too many "fumble fingers"
in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO will get confused, and people
may be yelling "yeah, yeah" for one when they mean the other.

But as to the substance, the incorrect premise is that to form an IC one goes
through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves as
candidates.  That is how registrars get accredited, but not how an IC
should be formed.  IC means individuals, and the voices in any process
that would form one should be those of individuals, not some pre-existing
clique, no matter who it is. The members of any such clique may of course
contribute whatever they want to to the discussion and development of
the process, but, although in democratic processes we end up delegating
authority to speak for us whenever the rules call for "representative"
government (e.g., some bodies within ICANN are representative, the
Board of Directors is not), on the issue of forming an IC I delegate the
authority to speak for me to no one.  The "Working Group" on this
subject is free to make its recommendations (and whoever they are,
if they're not proceeding in doing that, they should be), of course, but
one takes those recommendations for what they are worth and no more.

(Um, "Power to the People?")

(And I repeat again, with a process now at work, that papering the walls
with yet more "motions," when that is not exactly how the decisional
process set up by the DNSO works, is quite counterproductive and
only breeds confusion in us clueless newbies.)

(Have you registered to vote yet?)

Bill Lovell

"babybows.com" wrote:

Joop,

You were a participant in the DNSO Review Process.  The Review Working Group
together with the NC Review Task Force generated reports that were submitted
both to the Names Council and to the ICANN Board.  These reports resulted
in:

a. provisions within the Names Council Business Plan to specifically address
the subject of an Individuals Constituency.  "Review the need, uniqueness,
potential contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name
holder's constituency."

b. The agreement among NC members to establish criteria/procedures to allow
for new constituencies.

c. The presentation of the NC Business Plan to the Board.

d. An ICANN Board resolution (01.28) to consider DNSO structural changes.

Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground rules"
for an individuals' constituency.  The ICANN Board (in accepting the NC's
Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended to
the need to establish ground rules.  The NC has been charged with this
responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an
unneeded redundancy.   Is my assessment incorrect?

Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an
application is **again** presented to the Board.  This is an explicit
reference to the former idno petition.  Why should the GA be advocating on
behalf of any one petitioning group?  Why are you expecting the GA to take
sides?  Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there are many
members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency
that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular.  Is it
necessary to include this language in your revised motion?

Speaking as an Individual,
Danny

--
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