[ga] RE: CA-IDNO Current Status

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

With regard to the possible formation of a new constituency I would like to
call attention to some specific language in the ICANN Bylaws from Article
VI-B, Section 3:

"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."

I think it is important to note that it is up to those wanting to form a
constituency to self-organization.  In reading discussions on this list, it
appears that many people think that the NC or the board need to form a
working group to make this happen.  I suppose that that would be an
acceptable approach but I don't think it is absolutely necessary.
Certainly, because the board will have to eventually consult the NC before
approving a new constituency, it does make good sense to at least keep the
NC informed throughout the process and to deal with any concerns other
constituencies may have.

Hope this is helpful.

Chuck Gomes

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl E. Peters [mailto:bridge@darientel.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 9:10 AM
Cc: politech@vorlon.mit.edu; DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET;
icannatlarge@egroups.com; discuss@ador-doc.org; isocnz-l@isocnz.org.nz;
icann-europe@fitug.de; FOCI; ICANN Board; ICANN Members . ORG; IFWP
Discuss List; Lingua; NCDNHC Discuss List; Orange; DNSO, General
Assembly of the; List, Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
Discussion
Subject: CA-IDNO Current Status


All recipients of this mail have exhibited recent interest in internet
domain name policy and are thus included in this mailing of a most
substantive news piece.

    Many of you have followed the efforts of the CA-IDNO (Cyberspace
Assoc.- Individual Domain Name Owner's organization / constituency) and
will be interested to know that after about 16 months of near constant
conflict over the leadership style of its bootstrap, Joop Teernstra,
that a major event has occurred.  Mr. Teernstra, finally feeling
pressured to give up the control of the many tools that are used to
control the group he started as a "democratic" representation of
individual domain name owners, has now resigned from the group.

    Instead of simply turning over control of these tools that were
developed for the group and of the website that has chronicled the
history of the group holds much of the critical data such as current
charter and so forth,  Joop has decided to remove all semblance of his
contribution to the group and has effectively tried to cripple the group
he started and was asked to step down from leadership of.

    It should be noted that immediately upon his stepping down,  pleas
were made for him to remain a part of the group, but merely to remove
himself from leadership for one year so the group could learn to
function as other than a private club and have a better chance to truly
represent the class of people known as individual domain name owners. He
has apparently declined.

    If you are still interested in these issues and ran away at some
point, from all the fighting within that group, please return now to a
spirit of hope and cooperation. Even having started another group for
these concerns during the darkest days of the CA/IDNO, I too am throwing
what support I can to help get this effort up and running one more time.
If you have interest protecting and developing the rights of the
individual on the internet, you owe it to your self to come and give
just one more try for an organized approach where issues and not
personalities can be the focus.

    Welcome one and all to write me at idno@bridgecompanies.com if you
will join, either as a participant or an observer. There is a lot of
work to do since Joop took all his toys and went home, but there is also
the new hope of having it count for something without the personality
conflicts that hobbled the original group.

Sincerely yours,

Karl E. Peters
idno@bridgecompanies.com
--
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