Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' constituency (IC)

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

The Attorney general of the State of California has the right to remove any
or ALL of the Board Members since the ICANN is formed as a California
Nonprofit Corporation. A letter writing campaign to him could prove
interesting.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "GA" <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: "William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>; "McMeikan, Andrew"
<andrew.mcmeikan@mitswa.com.au>; "icann board address"
<icann-board@icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'
constituency (IC)


> Bill and all assembly members,
>
> William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > Andrew:
> >
> > I would not disagree with a word you say.  I've received several
comments
> > to the effect that "ICANN follows the $$$." Well, there are at least two
> > ways to stop that -- maybe actually three":
> >
> > 1) The first of these is by removal of a Director (from the ICANN
bylaws):
> > Section 11. REMOVAL OF A DIRECTOR
> >
> >     Any Director may be removed following notice and a three-fourths
(3/4)
> > majority vote of all members of the Board; provided, however,
> >     that the Director who is the subject of the removal action shall not
be
> > entitled to vote on such an action or be counted as a member of the
> >     Board when calculating the required three-fourths (3/4) vote; and
provided
> > further, that each vote to remove a Director shall be a
> >     separate vote on the sole question of the removal of that particular
> > Director. A Director selected by a Supporting Organization can be
> >     recommended for removal by that Supporting Organization through
procedures
> > adopted by that Supporting Organization and ratified by
> >     the Board. Upon such recommendation for removal, the Board shall
vote to
> > remove such Director. If the Board, without a
> >     recommendation by the Supporting Organization, seeks to remove more
than one
> > Director selected by a Supporting Organization within
> >     a four-month period, the Board must show reasonable cause for its
action.
>
>   The problem with this Bylaws provision is that it requires that the
Board
> itself must vote off another board member.  In very few instances in
> the corp world where the corporation is a publicly held company does
> the Board itself make such decisions.  Usually the stock holders have this
> power.
>
> >
> >
> > Or at least a Director of the particular supporting organization, e.g.,
the
> > DNSO. That is a long term process, not likely to have
> > much effect on a current issue that some Director seems to want to treat
in his
> > or her own way contrary to what the SO had
> > indicated it wishes.
> >
> > 2) The second is by amendment to the ICANN Bylaws:
> >
> >     (e) Subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 3, the Board
shall
> > accept the recommendations of a Supporting Organization if the
> >     Board finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes
of, and is
> > in the best interest of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with
> >     the Articles and Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and open
processes
> > (including participation by representatives of other
> >     Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) is not reasonably
opposed by
> > any other Supporting Organization. No recommendation
> >     of a Supporting Organization shall be adopted unless the votes in
favor of
> > adoption would be sufficient for adoption by the Board without
> >     taking account of either the Directors selected by the Supporting
> > Organization or their votes.
> >
> > The amendment would be by deletion of the item "(1) furthers the
purposes of,
> > and is in the best interest of, the Corporation"  Too often,
> > a corporation becomes the Board which becomes the Directors; the
Directors
> > become the Board which becomes the corporation, and
> > a provision like (1) comes to be read as "being in the best interest of
the
> > Directors."
>
>   Exactly right and where the problem with the structure of ICANN resides
> presently.
>
> > The way to prevent that from happening is simply
> > to remove that loophole. Or better yet, re-write it the way it should
have been
> > written in the first place: "furthers the purposes of, and
> > is in the best interest of, the Internet and its users.'  The Internet
is not
> > ICANN's toy.
>
>   Agreed.  And if you recall this was debated heatedly some time ago.
>
> >
> >
> > 2) The third relates specifically to the question of whether ICANN and
its
> > policies shall follow the rule of reason or shall follow the $$$.
> > The surest cure for that is the minority report, which has its
counterpart in
> > the law in the dissenting opinion.  With a minority report being
> > permitted in the "recommendations of a Supporting Organization," those
drafting
> > those recommendations would be required to "look over
> > their shoulders" and ensure that their position was in fact the best
route to
> > take; it is very often in the law that dissenting opinions become
> > the actual law of the land the next time the issue comes up, and when
the Board
> > looks at both the recommendation and the accompanying
> > minority report, it, too, will need to look over its shoulders and
realize that
> > there are lots of people out their ready to in their hides to the
> > wall if they don't do the right thing.
> >
> > And for the longest time, the Board has not:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >     (b) The initial Constituencies shall consist of (in alphabetical
order):
> >
> >     1. ccTLD registries;
> >
> >     2. commercial and business entities;
> >
> >     3. gTLD registries;
> >
> >     4. ISP and connectivity providers;
> >
> >     5. non-commercial domain name holders;
> >
> >     6. registrars; and
> >
> >     7. trademark, other intellectual property and anti-counterfeiting
interests.
> >
> > In both this document (under item 5, but as I said before there are no
clear
> > definitions of these constituencies)
> > and in the recent requirements that individuals be given a voice,
nothing has
> > happened.  Several people have
> > kindly provided me with the URLs of several constituencies (e.g., the
IPC) and
> > other groups not "recognized"
> > (e.g., the IDNO), but I've yet to see a URL of a constituency that
satisfies the
> > (pathetically poor) definition
> > given under 5.  Who are they, and what is their URL?  The "At-Large?"
Not so.
> > (The paranoic would look
> > askance at that, seeing on the list of its supporters a former head of
ICANN --
> > Esther Dyson -- and ask
> > whether or not it was already a tool of ICANN.  But would I?  Naaahhh.)
> >
> > Hard questions need asked, and hard answers provided. Beyond that, it is
a
> > matter of checks and balances;
> > the picture people are giving me is that it is all checks (in dollar
amounts, to
> > ICANN), but no balances that
> > would let the individual weigh in. If that is indeed the case, the
system needs
> > some overhaul through such
> > means as I suggest above, and anyone else who can think of better
mechanisms
> > should "speak now or forever
> > hold your peace." Getting ICANN to follow the rule of reason rather than
the $$
> > is a process kind of thing.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > "McMeikan, Andrew" wrote:
> >
> > > I was trying to point out all the possible groups that any particular
person
> > > would fit in, I was not trying to say that a large company with a
hundred
> > > domains should have a hundred reps in the IC, but it could be argued
that
> > > they should have one.
> > >
> > > No ones voice should be diluted but everyone should have a say, at the
> > > moment that means the individuals are having to shout and wave their
arms
> > > about
> > >
> > > The internet is lots of networks all interfacing with each other.
> > >
> > > "power" in any form usually comes from mobbing together, the more
open,
> > > distributed and standardised ways in which that is done spreads that
power
> > > more evenly.
> > >
> > > The balance between the lone voices of individuals (like me) and the
> > > undisputed "power" of large commercial entities and governments is
that
> > > whatever happens should never prevent the lone voices from being able
to
> > > have their say, show their point of view or being legally trampled
into the
> > > ground just because they do not have large gobs of money to back them
up.
> > >
> > > I think business has always had enough laws to protect them, while
ICANN
> > > should by all means listen to their side, it should never stop
listening to
> > > the individual because an individuals right to free speech, expression
and
> > > freedom from persecution is essential not only for an individuals
freedom
> > > but also its a right that business would not wish themselves to be
denied.
> > >
> > > Money is the real difference in "power" and probably the biggest
threat to
> > > an IC.  After all what's to stop a multination corporation from
registering
> > > a domain for each employee and getting them to all sign up as
individuals
> > > and vote as the corp. wants?  Paranoid yes I know, but money will
always buy
> > > votes, that's why participation should be as cheap as possible to get
the
> > > maximum participant to have their say.
> > >
> > >         cya,    Andrew...
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: William S. Lovell [SMTP:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:36 PM
> > > > To:   McMeikan, Andrew
> > > > Cc:   'Joop Teernstra'; GA
> > > > Subject:      Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
> > > > holders'   constituency (IC)
> > > >
> > > > I'm missing a rational connection here. In one case, "power" comes
from
> > > > buying up tons of votes; in the scenario below, "power" comes from
> > > > buying and controlling tons of computers tied to the internet. In
either
> > > > case, how does the buying of this or that rationally imply the right
to a
> > > > correspondingly larger voice in Internet affairs? Either of these
seem
> > > > to me to dilute out the voice of the individual.
> > > >
> > > > However, I would emphatically concur with the idea that
constituencies
> > > > need precise definition as to the perspective from which thie
members
> > > > speak -- not as to specific positions on specific issues (although
what
> > > > that might be might easily be inferred from the perspective -- but
rather
> > > > "is this the voice of the individual, a small business, a large
business,
> > > > a
> > > > hobbiest, a merchant, an entrepreneur with an invention?" (I know
lots of
> > > > people of this last type -- many clients open up shop on the web the
day
> > > > the patent application is filed) and so on.
> > > >
> > > > Again, none of this definition notion precludes anyone from joining
any
> > > > constituency, but it would give the person looking around an idea of
> > > > whether that person was joining a compatible bunch, or would be
> > > > walking into a den of wolves.
> > > >
> > > > Bill Lovell
> > > >
> > > > "McMeikan, Andrew" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a
little
> > > > > definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the
subject
> > > > line.
> > > > >
> > > > > in general there are
> > > > > 1)the mass of users
> > > > > 2)some of those produce content or contribute in some way to the
overall
> > > > net
> > > > > 3)some control a single (non-transient) computer that makes up
part of
> > > > the
> > > > > internet
> > > > > 4)some can exercise control of several computers  that are part of
the
> > > > > internet
> > > > > 5)some control large numbers of computers on the internet
> > > > > 6)some control vast chunks of internet resources both computers
and
> > > > pipes
> > > > > 7) ICANN wants one root to bind them
> > >         <snip>
> > > --
> > > 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@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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>

--
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