RE: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???

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

Bill,

The Bylaws already allow for the creation of a new constituency but the
board would have to approve the addition which would result in an amendment
to the Bylaws as I understand it.  As you said very well below, nothing will
convince the board and the NC more than proof of a solid, representative
organization already in place and ready to go.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:26 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: [ga]
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???


Mr. Gomes:

Well said. "Rhetoric" is what's been happening for years, some constructive
and some back alley scrapping. The idea that our rushing to a "vote"
(although I've noted that I'm in favor of having this little "yeah, nay" bit
just to see where the land lies) will accomplish anything is naive to the
extreme. Too much personality, grinding old axes, and so on, without
much show of solidarity. Each blast from Party A at Party B adds more
to the image. So far as I've been able to tell, there are, indeed, no means
established here for having a definitive "vote" on anything, nor even the
slightest notion of what would be done with the results of the vote except
ship it off to ICANN and watch it headed right for the round file.

Other than the Business Constituency and IDNO and the like, after poring
over the ICANN pages I've seen no web sites presenting the credentials
of any "constituency" or any authoritative listing of what or who the
various
constituencies are, other than the listings of the Supporting Organizations
and
the original listing out of the Bylaws which lists bodyless names (ccTLD
Registries, Commercial and Business entities, ISPs and connectivity
providers, Non-commercial domain name holders, Registrars, and.
Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests). The thing
with ICANN is that if you're not on that list, or authoritatively identified
with some line on that list, you're toast.  I've seen no recognition that
since
the constituencies are defined in the Bylaws, if one wants to create a new
constituency one must amend the Bylaws -- you go in and pore through
them to see how that is done, and you direct your efforts towards that
rather than burn up more septillions of electrons expounding ideas (some
good, some dreadful) and hassling other list members.

This "I demand the right to vote" tack, with no thought towards what
comes next, is utterly amateurish, and is taken quite properly as a sign
that "that bunch has no idea what it's doing and can be ignored."  It is
not enough to exclaim that "ICANN has been told to run itself 'bottom
up' so that somehow, and magically, 'it must allow an individual domain
name holder constituency,' since it does have mechanisms by which
people can be heard, if those steps were only utilized. It's all a matter
of process, i.e., using the right one.

One follows the ICANN mechanisms, not just expound rhetoric at an
ICANN meeting and be ignored. One tries to garner support from the
other SOs.  One lobbies the Directors, one by one, remembering that
ICANN does NOT operate by representative government -- the Board
members placed there by particular SOs are not there to represent the
SO that did so; they are there to "advance the good of the Corporation"
(or words to that effect).

The ICANN constituency list has been locked in stone since day one, in
its Bylaws, and it will stay that way until organized and concerted effort
is
made to amend those Bylaws.

Bill Lovell

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> I am one who supports the possible value of an individual domain name
> holders constituency but as I said publicly in Melbourne, I don't believe
> that discussing it and passing motions that there should be one will
> accomplish much.  That has all happened in the past and look where we are.
>
> If you really want to make this happen, then organize such a constituency
> and then you will be able to clearly demonstrate with objective data its
> viability, its representativeness, etc.  Neither the NC nor the ICANN
board
> is going to do this for you and it seems highly unlikely that they will
> approve a new constituency without evidence beyond simple rhetoric.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@corliss.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 10:56 PM
> To: William X. Walsh
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???
>
> Hi William
>
> Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all tone
down
> personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity for consensus.
>
> I also note your own personal support of a constituency for individual
> domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on this one.  Many
others
> are also.  Those that have said so specifically seem to me to include:
>
> In favour:
> Joop Ternstra
> William X. Walsh
> Roeland Meyer
> Joe Kelsey
> Marc Schneiders
> Patrick Corliss
> Leah Gallegos
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> Andrew McMeikan
> Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
> Eric Dierker
> Jeff Williams
>
> Opposed:
> nobody
>
> Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider putting
it
> to a vote?
>
> Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
holders'
> constituency (IC)
>
> > Hello Joop,
> >
> > Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:21:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then
perhaps
> > > the motion is better off without your "support".
> >
> > I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means, that you are in it
> > more for the personal glory than for the concept of getting a real
> > individual's constituency created in the DNSO.
> >
> > If you truly want to see an individual's constituency adopted, with
> > as broad support as would be needed to get this controversial issue
> > push forward, then you would well do to set your personal issues
> > aside, and remove the IDNO from any considerations.
> >
> > I'd hate to see the IDNO issue become a subject of debate again,
> > especially at this very important moment.
> >
> > But there are enough people who share the concerns with regard to the
> > IDNO itself that any effort to make the IDNO even a small focus of
> > this movement will meet with solid and loud opposition.
> >
> > Is it really worth it for this little personal glory, Joop?
> >
> > I think deep down you are a bigger person than that.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh
>
> --
> 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
--
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