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

Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

Mark C. Langston wrote:

> Were any of those members actually there at the behest of their
> respective constituencies, officially representing the will of the
> constituencies?  Was there one such individual from each
> constituency?

To be short and polite: each consituenct us free to carry its business as they
prefer, unless this creates problems to the DNSO.

Pleae provide any evidence of a single complaint within any constituency
regarding the question yu raise. If they felt representedd, and have no
complaint, so should you be, Mark.

> "each recognized constituency" meaning from the ccTLD, commercial/business,
> gTLD, ISP, registrar, and TM/IP constituencies.
> Even if someone somehow managed to find people meeting all those criteria
> from the other constituencies, there was no one there from the gTLD
> constituency, by your own admission.
> The bylaw does not state, "except for those who don't feel like
> participating."

Hell, Mark, you're happy not to be one of my law students ;-))

Your interpretation leads to absolute unilateral veto power for each and every
consituency by simply not "nominating" reps in the sense you imply. This could
not be more antithetic to the whole DNSO and ICANN history, tradition and rules.

Arfumentaton ad absurdum, no matter how well constructed, is the first thing
law studnets learn to escape from. I guess this could also apply here.

Best regards,

Amadeu, writing his last mail of the day to GA (self-imposed "nosie reduction" mesure)