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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Vany and all assembly members,

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> On Fri, 11 May 2001, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Vany and all assembly members,
> >
> > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Chuck:
> > > I have take some time to read the ByLaws again and this is what it says:
> > >
> > > "Any group of individual or entities may petition to the Board for
> > > recognition as a new or separte Constituency.  Any such petition will be posted for public
> > > comment pursuant the article III, section 3.  The Board may create new
> > > constituencies in responses to such a petition, or on its own motion, if
> > > it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
> > > Corporation.
> >
> >   This is the salient part of this section (Section 3).  A constituency
> > in it's proper form is not necessarily to serve a corporation.
>
> When the ICANN Board has stated clearly a resolution like "the ICANN Board
> has decided to not create a new consitutency for individuals because it
> doesn't serve for the purposes of the Corporation?"  I still haven't
> read such resolutions neither know the existence of such a resolution.

  Indeed right Vany.  The ICANN BOD has not made any decision on
the IDNO petition.

>
> ICANN is obligated by the BY-Laws to follow the process described in such
> By-Laws regarding new constituencies.

  Indeed it is, and it has not done so.

>
>
> > >  In the even that the Board is considering action on its own
> > > motion it shall post a detailes explanation of why such action is
> > > necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not
> > > make  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 consituency for public comment, it
> > > will notify the Names Council and will consider any response to that
> > > notification prior taking action"
> > >
> > > This By-Laws give the right to any group of individuals to make a request
> > > for a new consituency.  Then ICANN has the obligation to put it for Public
> > > Comments, according to the same By-Laws.
> >
> >  And this has already been done with respect to the IDNO/IDNH...
> False.  According to the list of the subjects of Public Comment Forum:
> http://forums.icann.org there haven't have any process of Public Comments
> specifically about a new constituency for the individual domain name
> owners.

  No.  The petition was submitted.  In fact, the NCDNHC supported that
petition, of which you are a member.  But it is true that http://forums.icann.org
does not show this submitted petition which is part of the problem.

>
>
> I think that pursuant to the By-Laws, it would be wise to request
> formally again a new constituency for individuals domain names holders.

  Again?  Why again?

>
>
> Best Regards
>
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> IT Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
> Fax: (507) 230-3455
> e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa

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