[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:

>On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 12:34:55PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>> 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.
>Thanks for confirming my statement.

No problem.  Believe it or not, Kent, I am capable of agreeing with you
if you say something I agree with. :)

(and as I self-corrected, the term used was 'regular expression' of the
GA, instead of 'sole expression'.)

>> 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.
>There is no such process mentioned in the bylaws -- the GA does not
>elect representatives to anything.  
>The NC selects the BoD of ICANN members.  The GA nominates candidates
>for the BoD of ICANN, but, since membership in the GA is
>unrestricted, that just means that anyone can nominate candidates for
>the BoD. 

Our reading of this section conflicts, then.  Here's the actual line
from the ICANN bylaws:


   (d) The GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC
       and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those
       seats reserved for the DNSO.
To me, this says that:

1)  The NC must adopt procedures via which the GA may nominate persons to
    serve on the Board,
2)  The Board must approve those procedures, and
3)  The GA is nominating persons to serve, they are not nominating 
    candidates which must then be further filtered by another decision

(note that items 1 and 2 smell suspiciously like the WG process.  That
being the case, I'd like to propose that a new WG be created to address
exactly the issue in #1 above.) 


>Personally, I don't think it would be a bad idea if the GA elected a
>set of 3 NC reps, and I have proposed it several times.  But there is
>no such requirement currently in the bylaws. 

Then you should have no trouble with the above interpretation, except in
that my reading of that section differs from yours currently.

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