Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

I fully support this.
Actually the budget of he DNSO should be funded by the iCANN and not
the other way round. The money is paid when paying the DNs. Now, the
Red Cross, the Secours Catholique, Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama,
the Blue Cross, the Red Crescent,  anti-Digital Dived efforts, etc..etc...
would be denied rights because they do not ransom the people as the
large TM owners do (I am a small TM owner and I am extremely dissatisfied
with the way the WIPO/iCANN support my interests).

Now we have several practical solutions;

- [  ] a motion
- [  ] a formal complain according to iCANN procedures
- [  ] an immediate letter to Arnold Abbott (DoC) and to the GAC Members
- [  } a legal action
- [  ] a rebel action which would lead to an Internet Community Association
        for Names and Numbers.
- [  ] others

Before spending hours and thousands of dollars in discussions, I think
it would be appropriate to decide what we want to do. So I propose you tick
the action you think we should undertake and then we focus on what the
true majority wants.

I thank all the read only'  Members to tell us what they really want. This 
post
should be responded by more than 10 people. Or there would be no reason
for us to stay in here. And none of these action would be legitimate.

Jefsey


On 11:08 29/04/01, babybows.com said:
>On 10 April, the Names Council decided to adopt the report of the NC Budget
>Committee which called for the suspension of the voting rights of
>financially delinquent constituencies after 180 days "until such time as the
>DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the varies late
>payment fees."
>
>Only one constituency (the NCDNHC) did not vote in favor of this resolution.
>One of their representatives, Milton Mueller, has argued "It is illegitimate
>and bad policy to link budgetary matters to representation rights. DNSO is
>supposed to be a representative body. Nothing in the ICANN by-laws or the
>White Paper suggests that representation hinges on paying some arbitrarily
>defined fee. Linking those two could cause ICANN serious legal and political
>problems. (That is not an idle threat)."
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00219.html
>
>The current cost of participation for each of the seven DNSO Constituencies
>is $15,371.  It is clear that this sum represents a financial difficulty for
>one constituency, and may well represent a barrier to entry for other
>emerging constituencies (such as the long-awaited Individual's
>Constituency).
>
>At a time when ICANN projects $5,580,000 in revenues, and has readily
>authorized $450,000 for an At Large Membership Study (ostensibly to allow
>for enhanced community participation), I find it astounding that a decision
>has been made to embark upon a course of action that potentially puts
>member's voting rights in jeopardy.  Rather than choosing to ask for a
>Bylaws amendment that might provide for expenses reasonably related to the
>legitimate activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and
>operational costs), punitive measures have instead been adopted.
>
>This is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and should be a
>matter of grave concern to the membership of the General Assembly.  What is
>at stake is the prospect that certain domain name policy issues may be voted
>upon by a body that is no longer fully representative of the Internet
>community (in clear violation of White Paper principles).  The General
>Assembly should be taking a stand on this issue.

--
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