[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 10:06:07PM +0200, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
> > 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.
> ==> My interpretation from Paris Draft meetings and from ICANN
> meetings in Singapore and Berlin is that:
> - the members of GA have to choose and join one constituency
> (I do not remember if overlapping problem was solved,
> so may be join one or more constituencies)
> - each constituency is represented in the NC
Your interpretation does not comport with the bylaws:
(b) The DNSO shall consist of (i) a Names Council ("NC"),
consisting of representatives of constituencies as described in
Section 3 of this Article VI-B ("Constituencies") elected by those
Constituencies and (ii) a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of
all interested individuals and entities.
(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of
the DNSO, and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to
the work of the DNSO.
> The theory was that the Constituencies and Constituencies' members
> are GA, we are all together, but the GA may have from time to
> time persons trying to set up a new constituency.
> Once we arrived into practical exercise, something which was not
> forseen happen: we have many not willing to be constituency members.
> And a GA became a kind of political opposition (no offense intended)
> per se.
> How to solve this problem ?
One could amend the bylaws to state that the GA shall elect 3 NC
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain