[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] FW: Re: S. 705
>3. The main arena of work in Paris Draft was to have been the General
>Assembly, and it is so envisioned in the ICANN Bylaws also (see VI-B.4).
>Currently, the General Assembly doesn't even exist.
Then.. who will be meeting in Santiago at the General Assembly meeting ?
Who will be meeting in San Jose on Friday?
>Amadeu Abril i Abril's
>suggestion that it be identical to the firstname.lastname@example.org list, which has been
>practically the only mention of the General Assembly in all NC proceedings
>to date, was shot down in the Names Council meeting.
False. The issue is under discussion.
> The Names Council,
>while it is in a god-awful rush to deal with the treatment of Famous Marks
>(for instance), seems to have forgotten that "The NC is responsible for the
>management of the consensus building process of the DNSO." (ICANN Bylaws,
And that is what the working groups are for, search for consensus in
specific issues. Have you ever seen a document written by a general
assembly? I have not. Not even in the university. They create a drafting
>That consensus-building responsibility of NC has not begun to be exercised -
>by definition, because according to the ICANN bylaws the DNSO does not even
>exist yet. The bylaws state that
Do you have any specific proposals?
>"The DNSO shall consist of (i) a Names Council ("NC"), consisting of
>representatives of constituencies as described in Section 3 of this Article
>VI-B ("Constituencies") elected by those Constituencies and (ii) a General
>Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all interested individuals and entities."
>There is no General Assembly, hence the DNSO doesn't exist. To date this
>has concerned no-one in the Names Council.
>Furthermore, the NC members, who apparently are quite delicate creatures,
>are not required to read the email@example.com list, which is the only thing
>that remotely resembles the "forum" envisaged by the ICANN bylaws.
False. The discuss list is that, a discussion list. You reading of the
bylaws, when they sui your interest, is quite personal.
>messages sent to firstname.lastname@example.org, which is the distribution list for the
>Names Council, are bounced if they come from non-NC senders. So not only is
>there no General Assembly, there is no way to communicate officially to the
False. There is the comment list.
> For instance, there is no way for me to forward this to the
>NC members short of sending it to each of them separately. There is a
>"comments" address to post to, but only comments that suit some ill-defined
>criteria will be posted, and it is not known who will make this decision.
False. The criteria is very clear: address the Names council and do not
cross-post. If you wish to consider this as censorship, you can. We think
that it is just an anti-spamming meausure. Anybody can write anything if
he/she addresses the council.
>4. The Paris Draft had extensive review and comment mechanisms. The ICANN
>Bylaws also require the following:
>"VI-B.2.j The NC shall establish, subject to review and approval by the
>Board, an appropriate mechanism for review of grievances and/or