Re: [ga] Re: Ballot

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

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think that what the Board
does
or is to do is "recognize a group" -- or at least I hope that is not
the case.
That starts a cat fight, with this group battling that one for the
big prize,
during which time the Board can just lay back. I think it is (or ought
to
be) a step-by-step process, the first and really significant step being
a
resolution to the effect that "there will indeed be an Individuals
Constituency
(by whatever name)."  Qualifications and acceptance ("recognition")
are steps
appropriate to the accreditation of registrars, but are not appropriate
here.

In order to bring an IC about, I have previously argued that since the Board
(rightly) has to have assurance that such a constituency really exists, and also
has the smarts to self-organize and then operate, the "marketing" of those
propositions really ought to include providing a draft charter.  But not a
bunch of them -- if the Board had the inclination to put off the formation
of an IC forever, a better strategy to do so could hardly be conceived.
I would prefer to see a single charter, put together not as some kind of
finished work by this clique or that, but rather one that had been arrived
at through the "tumult" of  this list so as to arrive at some result on which
some kind of consensus had been reached, very likely through our polls
(and a whole lot of interchange first, with proposed amendments pouring in
and getting accepted or tossed throughout the course of the discussion, and
not just after the Chair has already announced the vote as seems now to be
occurring).

It was a "lack of consensus," you may recall, that those 11,000 trademark
attorneys hauled out in their opposition to the forming of an IC, and there
would hardly seem to be a better way to create such an impression than by
using a system that pitted this group against that for supremacy.

The existence of an involved constituency could hardly be proven better
than by what I have suggested, the proof of capability would be there in
that draft charter for all eyes to see, and the next step, actually to establish
the IC out of that charter (or something close thereto), would be practically
self executing if the Board were open to the proposition at all.

Bill Lovell

Bruce James wrote:

Thank you for this. I was not sure what the requirements were from the BoD.

/Bruce

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales" <vany@sdnp.org.pa>
To: "GA" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: May 19, 2001 09:54
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot

Hi Ken:

We have being discussed for sometime about what the By-Laws says and the
interpretation that everyone gives to them.

Some says that a constituency has to be self organized first (with
charter, etc) in order to
be created, I say based on from what I read in the By-Laws that a
constituency
first is created, then self-organized with charter,etc (by one or
different groups) and then ICANN Board recognizes the group they think
will represent better the constituency.

However, at the end, I haven't heard anyone from the ICANN Board and/or
ICANN Board staff stating or clarifying things.

Should the NC request a clarification on the Board about this issue maybe?

Best Regards
Vany
:-)

On Sat, 19 May 2001, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> bruce
>
> maybe i am wrong here, but i believe that the board requires a set of
> by-laws from the proposing constituancy...
>
> that is what i am referring to and what i was asking to see..
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce James" <bmj@keyname.net>
> To: "Danny Younger" <webmaster@babybows.com>; "Ken Stubbs"
> <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> Cc: "GA" <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
>
>
> > Ken:
> >
> >     I think your answer is here:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-10mar00.htm#VI-B-3c
> >
> >
> > ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
> >
> > Section 3. THE CONSTITUENCIES
> >
> > (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.
> >
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> > To: "Bruce James" <bmj@bmjames.com>
> > Sent: May 19, 2001 12:04
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> >
> >
> > question ?
> >
> > are you proposing an individual constituancy with the same bylaws
proposed
> > in 1999 by joop or are you proposing a new individual constituancy with
> > different by-laws.. ?
> >
> > i believe the last proposal & related by-laws were rejected by the board
> in
> > 1999
> >
> > ken stubbs
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bruce James" <bmj@bmjames.com>
> > To: "GA" <ga@dnso.org>; "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> >
> >
> > > Sure Ken, please look at this Icann site:
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > /Bruce
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> > > To: "Bruce James" <bmj@keyname.net>
> > > Sent: May 19, 2001 08:49
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> > >
> > >
> > > pleas provide me with a link to the proposed by-laws for the proposed
> > > constituancy
> > >
> > > thank you
> > >
> > > ken stubbs
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bruce James" <bmj@keyname.net>
> > > To: "babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:56 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would suggest that we leave out:  ****or the "approval in
principle"
> > > ****
> > > >
> > > > Now it reads:
> > > >
> > > > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
> the
> > > > immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the
ICANN
> > > Board
> > > > in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> > > recommends
> > > > to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an
Individuals'
> > > > Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
> > > plenary
> > > > session.
> > > >
> > > > /Bruce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a
ballot:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
> the
> > > > immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the
ICANN
> > > Board
> > > > in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> > > recommends
> > > > to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an
> > > Individuals'
> > > > Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a
> decision
> > > at
> > > > the Stockholm plenary session.
> > > >
> > > > Agree/Disagree
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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) 230-3455
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

--
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

--
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