[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] Agenda proposal

At 02:39 PM 26/07/1999 +0200, R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>> 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

I'm glad you are willing to consider observer status and willing to
consider the implications of IDNO delegates participating in the vote.
Yet, would it be wise to disregard the views of the observers/future
participants when it would come to any formal voting?
If the vote of the IDNO delegates would make a difference, and the Board
would subsequently not recognize the constituency, it would indeed be
trivially easy to recalculate the vote and reverse the decision.
This caveat could be built-in by agreement.

The opposite situation, --the incomplete NC making decisions based on a
vote without the IDNO (or the ncdnhc)-- would be formally  more difficult
to reverse, unless a similar proviso is made on all decisionmaking.

>> 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.
Sure, but ICANN will also be looking for guidance from the DNSO GA. 

>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.
I have offered my assistance in measuring that rough consensus, but Javier
has rebuffed this.
The consensus should include the  participants who have not been physically
present in Berlin.

>> 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
>Council's decisions.
I respectfully disagree with that last part. The Names Council's intended
and real role is to be a representative body of stakeholder interests.
Inclusion enhances legitimacy, exclusion does the opposite.

>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
The 1/3 undecided was 1/3 of a physical gathering. Their support would be
good for consensus building, but they may not be the ones who decide that
there should be a constituency of Individual DN holders.
The constituencies of the DNSO are not supposed to co-opt each other. 
They are either decided upon from above or they have constituted themselves
from below in accordance with the ICANN guidelines.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners