[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] We "decided" to defer the election of our ICANN board se ats
On 16 September 1999, R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>Anyway, maybe I can state the problem in practical terms.
>Who is a GA member?
>We have defined this already as "whoever is either subscribed to the GA or
>subscribed to the GA-announce".
>For nomination purposes, we say: "whoever is either subscribed to GA,
>subscribed to GA-announce, or member of a constituency".
>This means, to me, GA-members plus constituency members.
>It is not difficult to predict that this is likely to raise endless
>discussions about the constituencies trying to interfere with the GA (that
>should have had the power of nominating, while the constituencies via the
>Council had the power of electing), while the whole thing can be solved by
>subscribing to a (useful and) low-traffic list by the few members of the
>constituencies that are not willing to read all the GA traffic.
It's interesting that you bring this up. This was the exact rationale
Kent Crispin used recently on the NCDNHC to argue against the necessity of
IDNO. Since IDNO members can also be part of the GA, and can elect
representatives there, and members of the at-large body, and elect members
there, there's no need for the IDNO to exist as a constituency. He
claimed it was unfair to those in constituencies.
This seems to me to be saying that those in constituencies can do
exactly what Kent was arguing against as unfair. So, either it is unfair,
or Mr. Crispin was trying to spread FUD about the potential power
individuals have in this framework.
Mark C. Langston LATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard:
email@example.com to consider application for http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org