<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
Roberto, Harald, Joop and all others,
IMHO this petty, poor and boring comedy should be simply addressed in
having a petition signed during the MDR meeting to sue the ICANN,
demanding
the respect of the CA law regarding the Members. ie that every person
sharing
into the process of electing a Board Director is a Member. A non profit
organization without Member and a permanent "interim" board,
changing the
very nature of the Board at unexpected will, is pure joke. As Esther
Dyson says,
it has no legitimacy.
We need members (@large plus representative entities) as an ICANN
GA,
the by laws changes to be approved by the ICANN GA, as anywhere else
in the world. Such an action could be carried through a Political Action
Comity
or equivalent (I propose ICAPAC for a name easy to recall and make
press),
with a Membership fee of $100 to pay for the costs. I am ready to
subscribe.
The DNSO GA is probably the largest group to know its members
(@large
entities are not organized yet), many of its members have shown their
disagreement with the current boardsquattering: I think it is to us to
move.
A first strong signal will be to vote the proposed motion for the DNSO GA
Chair to be elected by the DNSO GA. A second one to review the NC
composition and election method, them willing it or not. In parallel, I
understand that would be braodly seconded a motion to be proposed to all
the other ICANN related entities to request the resignation of the
Squattering
Fours.
The ICANN is not a gift from Mrs. Becky Burr (cf. some of the Board
motion)
but a common property of the Internet users.
We happen to be that internet users.
I note that the BoD is made today of :
- 5 @large directors elect not allowed yet to seat
- 4 @large permanent interim directors
- 4 Directors already prevented to vote on the most controversed
issue
- several others under scrutiny for that issue which may totally
block
the development of the Internet (should the remaining happy
few
vote for the ".tel" gTLD, look at the ITU
position:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/index.html#OtherCorrespondence
we are not talking about small issues)
Is that really serious?
Jefsey
At 12:07 05/11/00, you wrote:
At 10:18 5/11/00 +0100, Harald
Alvestrand wrote:
>At 13:15 05/11/2000 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review
>> >committee on whether or how the At Large representation
should continue -
>>
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5
- is written into
the
>> >BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]
>> >
>>
>>Harald,
>>
>>What if it's deliberate?
>
>In order to achieve what? A tradition of instability of the
bylaws?`
>
Harald,
to some such a tradition (the longer you get away with it, the more
it
becomes a tradition) has turned out to be useful. :-)
The DoC approved Bylaws contained an equal number of @large directors
to
achieve a balance in representation.
This was the product of a negotiation process.
How convenient that later the goal posts can be moved without the need
for
renewed negotiation.
Will the Board also "amend" the inconvenient Art VI-B
section 3 a and d?
ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its
own
criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall
be
excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
participation in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate
to
the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and
consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board
shall
recognize a Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described
in
(b) below) by a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed
to
exist for purposes of these Bylaws.
…
(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will
be
posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board
may
create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its
own
motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of
the
Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own
motion
it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary
or
desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a
final
decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after
reviewing
all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or
recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it will
notify
the names council and will consider any response to that notification
prior
to taking action.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association and
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|