Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>]

 hello dennis...

 below is the exerpt of the section of the by-laws regarding constituancy
 formation:
 "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. "


 I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or direction for the
 names council to be involved in the formation process of any constituancy
 but rather a directive that the process be one of self-organization by any
 prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
 handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition is facilitated
by
 interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.

 i do not understand why you or any prospective member of an individual
 constituancy would want the names council involved in facilitating this
 formation process. further, it would seem to me that the names council
would
 be out-of-bounds here to involve itself as a formal body in this process
 unless directed to by the board and specifically requested to by the
 self-organized body.

 it would seem more appropriate to me that this self-formation process be
 managed and facilitated by the parties who are seeking constituancy status
 rather than members of other constituancies which are currently represented
 on the names
 council. this would avoid any future criticism of "micro-managing" or
 "manipulation" of this constituancy formation process.


 respectfully submitted

 ken stubbs

>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Schaefer" <apsdps@mediaone.net>
> To: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:12 PM
> Subject: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC
> teleconferences
>
>
> > Months ago, at the Yokohama meeting, the GA approved a resolution asking
> > for the DNSO to explore an individuals constituency.
> >
> > Why have the Names Council and the DNSO failed to respond for so long?
> >
> > The MoU envisioned a bottom-up democratic process -- and here you have a
> > direct
> > request from the very organ that you claim tipifies democracy -- the GA.
> > Yet you
> > do nothing.
> >
> > Please act on this request at the very next meeting, or at least explain
> to
> > a puzzled
> > GA why it should continue to participate in a body that appears to have
no
> > meaning,
> > no value, and no standing.
> >
> > >Dennis Schaefer
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>
> > To: <voters@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 5:00 PM
> > Subject: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences
> >
> >
> > >
> > > [ To: as listed below ]
> > >
> > > 24 November 2000
> > >
> > > The next Names Council teleconferences are scheduled for:
> > >
> > >              Tuesday   19 December 2000
> > >              Wednesday 24 January  2001
> > >
> > > The Intake Committee welcomes your input up to 21 days before the date
> > > of each meeting.  The agenda is expected to be published 14 days in
> > > advance of the meeting, and the related documents 7 days in advance.
> > >
> > > Agenda for 19 December 2000 NC meeting: please submit your input
> > > before 28 November 2000 to agenda@dnso.org
> > >
> > > Agenda for 24 January 2001 NC meeting: please submit your input
> > > before 3 January 2001 to agenda@dnso.org
> > >
> > > DNSO Secretariat
> > > --
> > >
> > > Preparation of agendas for NC meetings
> > > --------------------------------------
> > >
> > > At its 21 September meeting the DNSO Names Council (NC) requested the
> > > Intake Committee (IC) to assist it with the preparation of agendas
> > > for NC meetings.
> > >
> > > The IC invites suggestions for agenda items from the following groups:
> > >
> > >    * members of the Names Council
> > >    * the Names Council Secretariat
> > >    * the ICANN Board
> > >    * members of the ICANN Board
> > >    * the ICANN Officers and Staff
> > >    * the GA Chair
> > >    * members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to
> > >      the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA voting register
> > >    * subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
> > >
> > > Agenda suggestions may be submitted to agenda@dnso.org, see archives
> > > in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/agenda/Arc00/maillist.html
> > >
> > > In order to give sufficient notice to NC members and to allow time
> > > for consultation within Constituencies items must be submitted 21 days
> > > before the date of the meeting.
> > >
> > > Names Council Intake Committee
> > >
> > > Philip Sheppard, Caroline Chicoine, Paul Kane,
> > > Youn Jung Park, Michael Schneider
> > >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html