[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] NC violations of ICANN charters
On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 01:41:54PM -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> The *real* violation is a violation of the spirit of the Singapore
> compromise. It's against the spirit of that compromise that (at a minimum)
> a majority of the voting NC members don't think it's worthwhile to listen to
> objections raised to their processes, and that their duty to facilitate
> consensus in the General Assembly does not seem to imply to them that they
> actually pay attention to what the General Assembly thinks.
I don't agree with your characterization of the "spirit of the
> Also, the NC
> makes no effort to draw public attention to the policy issues being
> considered (only 10 comments to WG-A), and they dismissively and defensively
> rebuff all attempts to help the process become more open. At least, that is
> the attitude of those who have bothered to communicate their reasoning at
Just curious where you think the publicity budget for "drawing
public attention" would be?
> But for none of this, as Javier and others have so eloquently pointed out,
> can the Names Council be censured, because none of it violates a specific
> provision of the Bylaws. That surely is the fault of the drafters of the
> Bylaws, and should be corrected by amendment (e.g., notices should be
> *prominently* displayed...).
Oh goody. Then we can argue about how prominent is prominent.
> 1. The Names Council has not complied with Article VI-B.2.b., which states:
> "The NC is responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been
> heard and considered prior to a decision by the NC. "
> Although to anyone reviewing the record of the Names Council, which has done
> such a poor job of publicizing WG-A that only 10 comments were received,
You neglect the fact that the issue in question -- the WIPO
guidelines -- have been collecting "responsible views" for a year.
The NC can't ignore those, and it can't *replace* the WIPO process
with its own process.
> from 7 commentators, of which one was the (on balance, very commendable)
> Chair of the WG-A, there is simply no question that the Names Council has
> done nothing to encourage participation or to solicit input, the members of
> the Names Council were able to vote, apparently in good conscience, that
> "all responsible views [were] heard and considered." Can anyone seriously
> contend, in open debate, that this happened?
Yes. The NC can legitimately consider the fact that there has been a
*tremendous* amount of prior open debate on this issue.
> 2. The Names Council has not complied with Article VI-B.2.j, which states:
> "The NC shall establish, subject to review and approval by the
> Board, an appropriate mechanism for review of grievances and/or
> reconsideration. "
> Given the rancor within the DNSO community, which predates even the
> authoritarian bungling by the Names Council, this should have been a first
There can only be so many "first priorities"...and you simply can't
term a prioritization issue as a "violation of the bylaws".
> 3. Finally, the Names Council has violated the ICANN Bylaws by refusing to
> aid in the creation of the General Assembly, thereby effectively preventing
> the General Assembly from exercising its rights to nominate candidates to
> the ICANN Board.
In San Jose the NC explicitly voted on several motions to aid in the
formation of the GA, in particular the creation of the "ga" list, and
designating it as the general forum for the GA.
> "The DNSO shall consist of (i) a Names Council .... and (ii) a
> General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all interested
> individuals and entities."
> The Names Council, as I mentioned above, has the responsibility of selecting
> the three ICANN Board members from the DNSO. This may well be their most
> important responsibility. But what have they done to make it possible?
> Answer is, nothing. The Names Council has done nothing to help create the
> General Assembly.
Hmm. I believe that the San Jose meeting designated the ga list as
> Javier Sola, despite what the bylaws say about who the
> General Assembly, seems to think that Names Council representatives from the
> constituencies are the same thing as the General Assembly.
??? It is incomprehensible to me where you got that idea.
> Until the General Assembly is established
It is my belief that the SJ NC meeting explicitly established the GA.
- and is kept informed - any
> elections to the ICANN Board will be a sham. The Names Council had several
> proposals before it which suggested that for practical purposes the General
> Assembly ought to be the same as the firstname.lastname@example.org list. What a useful
> suggestion - it would allow discussion and voting to take place on the list,
Discussion is taking place on the GA list; you are involved in it as
we speak. If there was anything to vote about, the GA could conduct
> and allow the General Assembly to meet online in a useful way. The
> suggestion was tabled, however, and to my knowledge has not been taken up
My belief is that it has not been taken up again because the
question is settled. The ga list is the GA.
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain