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

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

Vany and all assembly members,

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> Jeff:
> On Fri, 11 May 2001, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > > >  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 know it was submitted and rejected in Santiago de Chile.  But the
> process can begin again by submitting a new request to the ICANN Board. Or
> at least there's no place in the ICANN By-Laws that prevents to make a new
> petition for a new constituecy again.
>
> > > 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?
> Because I understood from the ICANN meeting in Santiago de Chile that the
> petition for an Individual Domain Names Holders Constituency was rejected.
> But if am wrong, then please, correct me.  Maybe my memory begins to be
> fuzzy.

  It was tabled, not rejected.  This indicates clearly to me anyway that
the process which the ICANN BOD dictated in the first place without
the benefit of @large directors in Santiago, by the way, was not followed
and still has not been.  Most of us, including yourself as my notes indicate,
felt this was a terrible and incorrect manner for the than ICANN BoD
to posture.  It still is.  If the ICANN BoD does not follow it's own procedures
or changes them after the fact, where is the creditability in the process Vany?
I submit that it is seriously waning and has been for some time...

  I do agree that a new petition could be submitted.  But given the now
long history of the ICANN BoD's deliberate attitude towards ANY
individual stakeholders representation, either by a Domain Name
Holder/registrant or as a member of the now soon to be defunct
@large, what possible or reasonable consideration can or would
be expected?  I submit to you Vany with all due and honest respect,
there would be little of none...

>
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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