[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] Agenda proposal
> the IDNO constituency ,if it has already successfully carried out its
> elections for the NC, can be provisionally part of the NC,
> until the ICANN
> Board confirms its recognition of them.
I agree, with a caveat.
I believe that the status should be of observer, not of full voting member
(supposing that voting will be carried out).
Otherwise we will have a severe formal problem. What if the IDNO is *not*
recognized by ICANN, should the voting be recalculated taking out the IDNO
> This is what is meant with bottom-up organization. There is no need to
> await the word from on high.
You know that I am in favour of the Individual DN Holders constituency, so I
hope you will not take this comment in the bad sense.
Either we agree to work within ICANN's framework, or we don't.
In the latter case, the bottom-up process can be pushed up to the point of
proclaiming unilaterally a new Council with new rules, which will keep us
free of deciding who is in and who is out without recognition by ICANN.
In the former case, though, we have to stick to the rules, and namely that a
constituency has to be recognized by ICANN before becoming part of the
I believe that the second option is the one that has the support of the
majority, i.e. the rough consensus in the GA.
> To constitute the NC just days before ICANN would recognize
> the IDNO, so
> that it is too late for the IDNO delegates to be included, would not
> enhance the legitimacy of the NC.
Agree, it would not enhance it.
OTOH, to add to the Council voting members of a constituency that has not
been recognized by ICANN (yet) will completely kill the legitimacy of the
Again, I hope that the 1/3 undecided - this was the share in Berlin - will
support the Individual DN Holders Constituency, and that this one is
recognized in Santiago, but I cannot accept the idea (within the current
legal framework, i.e. the ICANN Bylaws) of the unilateral addition of a