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

Re[2]: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

Monday, August 09, 1999, 1:19:43 AM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 03:56:15PM +0200, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> [...]
>> As noted by many others in this thread, Sexton and Teernstra (yes,
>> nominated for tactical reasons by people with vested interests we should
>> all suspect) were in fact representative of
>> constituences otherwise denied a seat at the table, and still denied a
>> seat at the table to this day.

> This statement is meaningless.  See below.

>> If we are to rely
>> on the "spirit" of the text rather than its letter (and I agree this is
>> not in
>> any way a ridiculous position for anyone to take) then it seems to me
>> that the spirit of representation was well served by these nominations. 
>> I gather you do not agree.  May I ask why?

> The term "constituency" actually has two meanings in these 
> discussions -- 1) one of the components of the DNSO formally 
> recognized in the ICANN bylaws -- the "big C" Constituencies; and 2) 
> the generic term for any group that might be considered to have an 
> interest in these proceedings -- the "little c" constituencies.

> The number of big C Constituencies denied a seat at the table is
> zero. 

> The number of little c constituencies is infinite, and therefore the
> number of them "denied a seat at the table" is infinite.  Sexton and
> Joop have no a priori right to be considered over the other infinity
> of little c constituencies.

> Furthermore, the little c constituencies supposedly represented by
> Sexton and Teernstra are not big C Constituencies for a *very* good
> reason -- both have been discussed since the very beginning of the
> DNSO formation, and both have remained contentious and as yet
> unapproved.  They may likely never be approved.

>>> opinion) the ICANN counsel on one side, and the NC on the other (decided to
>>> allow the three gTLD (NSI) reps in as full `NC members. Most of us noted that
>>> this was clarly against community consensus, passt compromises and any logi.
>> The relevant community of which I am aware professes to be for
>> inclusion.  Yet important sets of constituencies are excluded.  

> Arguably, they are not.  For example, an argument against the IDNOC
> is that individuals will elect half the ICANN board, and therefore 
> individuals already have more representation than any single 
> Constituency, and thus it would be unfair to have an IDNOC in addition.

>> It does not comport with the spirit of
>> inclusion -- it's just 3 NSI employees.  Why ICANN and indpendent
>> thinkers such as yourslef should find that better than people like
>> Sexton and Teenstra is a great puzzle to me.  Can you explain?  

> The 3 NSI employees are actually members of a real Constituency,
> recognized by the bylaws; Sexton and Teenstra are not. 


Can you please point out the clause in the bylaws that says that
being a NC representative of a constituency has a prerequisite that
they be members of the constituency in question?

If so, all of the current members must resign immediately, and rather
than having individuals on the pNC they must be immediately replaced
with organizational representatives, since none of the currently
recognized constituencies permit individuals to be members.

You want to split hairs and justify an action taken contrary to the
bylaws?  The hair splitting goes both ways, Kent.

William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934

Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners