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

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> Chuck:
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > Vany,
> >
> > I understand that.  That was because the initial constituencies were
> > preselected and listed in the Bylaws.  That is not the case for any new
> > constituencies that may be added.
> Then the ICANN Board might clear and publish which are the steps and
> procedures to add a new constituency in the DNSO.

With all respect, ICANN has no obligation to do anything of the kind.
According to http://www.glocom.ac.jp/users/ajp/ncmem.html, the
NCDNHC has 63 members. That, plus being proposed in the initial
ICANN Bylaws, sufficed to get the NCDNHC set up as a functioning
entity. Not alone, of course -- certain ones of those 63 put together
a charter, and applied.  Since there is no Individual Domain Name
Holder Constituency even mentioned in those Bylaws, those who wish
there to be one have a much rougher row to hoe.  A group that has
to be spoon fed is not likely to be very welcome in the ICANN halls.

Besides what I've mentioned earlier, this ga bunch might then wish to
create an IDNHC Charter Working Group (since that seems to be
the term commonly in use, I use it now instead of "committee"). The
product should then be an attachment to a request that an IDNHC
be authorized. One cannot pretend to seek "bottom up" operation
while at the same time looking for direction from the top down.

Bill Lovell


--
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