[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [council] Next council meeting
___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
To the DNSO Council: this statement of the current role of the DNSO pNC is
correct today. As you will see from the responses to the Bliley letter
from both ICANN and DOC, both would like to speed up the process previously
set forth so that each of the SO's will have actually elected their three
directors in time for them to take a seat and participate as directors at
the LA annual meeting. As a practical matter, this means formalizing
constituencies, electing the ongoing NC, and electing the DNSO directors,
and finishing that process by the middle of October. Since this is three
months away, it should be doable, even given other pressing issues, and it
is important that it be accomplished for obvious reasons. There may be a
more formal communication from ICANN in the near future on this, but since
you are having a meeting tomorrow, I wanted to bring it to your attention.
(Embedded
image moved Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
to file: 07/11/99 07:16 AM
pic30592.pcx)
Extension:
To: "J. William Semich" <bill@mail.nic.nu>
cc: council@dnso.org (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: Re: [council] Next council meeting
J. William Semich wrote:
>
> Hello pNCers;
>
[...]
I believe it is too early, with this just being the
> *preliminary* Names Council,
I disagree on this concrete point. There is much innacuracy about this NC,
being probvisional, preliminary inital or what else. It is provisional ONLY
in the fact that all of us will be replaced (r reelected) sometime before
the
end of the year. It "was" very provbisional in Berlin, where only three
consituencies have appointed their reps. This is no longer the case as ALL
currently recognized acconstituencies have done so, including gTLDs despite
the fact that they obstinately refuse to abide to commmon sense and
community
near-unanimous views (and therfore are forcing bylaws amendments). If a
given
consituency is less inclined than others to consider their reps as real NC
members or not, is in any case a purely internal problem that cannot affect
NC works.
The current NC is allowed, legitimated and ·obliged$ to do ANYTHING within
its
competences to make the DNSO advance EXCEPT selcting the three DNSO Board
Directors. For all other purposes is a prefectly ofrmed, complete and
legitimate NC.
>
> <snip>
>
> >* Now it seems that we will spend half of our time electing rotating
chairs.
> >OK, but we should not forget what the Bylaws say:
> >
> >Article VI-b.2(i)
> >
> >"The NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually"
>
> You are correct, that is what the Bylaws say. And that is *all* the
bylaws
> say about the election of a Chair of the GA. There is no requirement that
> the Chair of the GA should be a member of the Names Council, in fact.
>
> And I believe the chair of the GA *should not* be a member of the names
> council. But others might disagree. The point is, there should be no
limit
> on who can serve as GA Chair - whether a Names Council member or not.
>
Yes, we disagree. Let's see what the rest of the NC thinks about this
topic.
> >I submit that we should do so IN ADVANCE of the Santiago meeting, in the
> >hope that then we will be able to do more productive things after a so
long
> >trip (at least for some of us). I also submit that GA Chair (in fact
DNSO
> >Chair should indeed be a NC member, and we should elect them in the next
> >telconf after Monday's one.
>
> I disagree with this very strongly. Here again, I expect you will charge
me
> with going too slow. I do not believe the *preliminary* Names Council
> should be electing anyone to serve as permanent (one-year) chair of the
GA.
> That election must wait for the approved-constituencies' election of a
> permanent names council, some time after the November meeting of ICANN.
The approved consituencies have alrady elected their reps, Bill. For a
limited
period some of them, but with no restricvtions as to their ability to work.
Once again, please don't try to exprot to all of us your own internal
problems, if this is the case (it seems from some repeated msgs form you
that
at least your constituency has some reservations about the socpe of their
designated reps. I have not heard anything similar form any other
constiuency,
and I would appreciate a clarification on this point form each gorup, as
this
issue come s to the talbe over and over again, but always form the same
reduced subset of members. Help, please.
>
> If such an idea is proposed during the teleconference, I will vote
against
> the *preliminary* Names Council electing a GA chairman in a closed,
> unannounced, election during the July 12 teleconference or anytime after.
>
Bill, please read mu e-mail I said that I wnated to discuss this during
next
teleconf (Monday) and to hold the election on the subsequent meeting. We
cerationly cannot run that election if it is not in the agenda. So don't
panic. As for closed meetings, I thought it was being wecasted. If it is
not,
it is only because of our joint failure to set up a minimum budget and
collect
money to pay for those services. If that was the case (and I think it is
not,
and that we will have webcsting) is IATLD willing to advance the money for
teleconf/webcasting, with the assurance that we woill try to reund you
ASAP,
as other parites have done for the past telconfs, and, I think, for the one
on Monday?
Best regards,
Amadeu
pic30592.pcx