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

Re: [ga] NC violations of ICANN charters

On 9 August 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>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. 

I believe the term that Amadeu(?) very much wanted applied here was
that the ga@dnso.org list would be the "sole expression" of the GA.
Why it was so important that that particular phrase be used, I still
do not know.

...and, if my memory of events is still somewhat accurate, the NC at
first didn't want a mailing list to be representative of the GA.  And
once it was clear that it would be, they did not want the IFWP list to
be that expression.

>> 	"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 
>the GA.

This doesn't address the main point being made here, which is that the
NC has not initiated the process required in the by-laws by which the
GA may elect its representatives.  The GA is not represented in the
NC, and the NC can (and has) held up this process.  Furthermore, it's
made no indication that it intends to proceed on this item.

>>  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.

I also hold the impression that Mr. Sola believes that the Constituencies
are the GA, and vice versa.  That impression has been built from numerous
statements Mr. Sola has made.

I furthermore believe that Mr. Sola is opposed to any participation by
individuals other than through officially recognized constituencies.
For evidence supporting this belief, one need look no further than the
Berkman Center's archive of the July 26th NC teleconference.

(as a side note:  Would it be possible for these archives to be made
available in a full, downloadable form so that others who wish to have
a local copy of these archives may do so?  They are currently only 
available in a non-archivable streaming form.  If something happened
to those streams, the backups, or the policy at Berkman, there would
be no other full record of these events.)

Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org