DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement of r study

Whether or not there is a "higher threshhold for entry of a new constituency
than for those originally included" in any strict, legal, By-Laws sense, I
continue to insist that there is a practical higher threshhold -- the corollary
in patent licensing is the "NIH" syndrome: "Not Invented Here" -- "if it were
any good we would have invented it" -- and so on.  On the original ones,
the Directors at the time were already sold; on new ones, they have to be
sold. And the only way to do that is to demonstrate the presence already
of all of the characteristics that would justify the creation of such a beast
-- not this "just let us tinker and at some time in some indefinite future
we'll come back with a good toy."

I've said before that conceptually it's a two step process: first that there
will be a new constituency and secondly "this (e.g., this charter) is it," but
psychologically and marketing-wise, if you can't already show the second
you'll never get the first.

I also concur with the perspective today of Earl Heather -- he objects to
having a MOTION already on something that up until a day or two ago
many of us had never heard of before.  What we need is something like a
PROPOSAL that we could beat to death until something emerged that
was at least like a common understanding of what language a motion
would have. Seems to me that all this last minute word twiddling in
motions should have been taken care of long before any actual motion
was accepted by the Chair -- a rule something like "better get all your
comments in now, and out of those comments we'll craft a motion,
but once the motion has been accepted it's up or down, do or die,
no more amendments." (Of course, extraordinary circumstances
might require relaxing that rule, but the this last minute scrambling
really ought not to become the modus operandi.)

It's like PROPOSE -- debate the form of a motion; amendments all
over the place -- MOTION (or maybe not) -- debate the substance
of any motion; no amendments -- VOTE.

(Check out my new sig down below!)

Gene Marsh wrote:


I think the "essence", as put below, is the "legitimacy" of any
constituency.  Does a constituency's legitimacy depend, for better or worse,
on its original inclusion in the ICANN bylaws?

In that vein, I would agree with Patrick's view.  There appears to be a
higher threshhold for entry of a new constituency than for those originally
included.  The effect could be a perception that other constituencies are
considered nonsequitur with ICANN's view of the world.  This would be
incongruous with their mission, in my opinion.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:15 PM
> To: 'Patrick Greenwell'
> Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
> of r study
> Patrick, I am not sure that my question would hold them to a higher
> standard. That would remain to be seen, if they emerge with sufficient
> organizations, people, and time to develop a constituency, develop bylaws,
> identify funding, etc.
> In essence, though, I think that asking such a question about any new
> constituency is a reasonable thing to do.... and that is what I was doing.
> :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:patrick@stealthgeeks.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:00 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
> fo r study
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > Disagree. I am unclear on whether this community is a distinct community
> > that is large enough to devote the time needed to create, and
> then sustain
> a
> > constituency.  Perhaps it is, but there hasn't been any analysis which
> > documents that, or the sustainability, including participating in a
> > meaningful way in ICANN, bearing the cost of funding the DNSO... etc.
> It is a bit inappropriate to hold this nascent effort to higher standards
> than were placed upon those forming the original constituencies, don't you
> think?

         Bill Lovell


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>