[ga] Individuals Constituency? ISO? At Large?

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

Vany has hit the nail right on the head in citing one mechanism from the
Bylaws pertaining
specifically to recognizing a new Constituency. For convenience I have
cut and pasted it again
below, but I also point out another one pertaining to domain names
(the issue about which
many individuals are in fact concerned -- and which of course is the
basis for the "DN" in
"DNSO").  Of interest in it is the fact that it specifically grants
power to the GA (along with
whatever Constituencies may exist at the time) to propose domain name
policies or
recommendations to the Names Council (NC).  The relationship there,
as also shown below,
is that unlike Directors (who are to act in "the best interests of
the Corporation"), members
of the NC are indeed to act as "representatives" of the Constituencies
that elected them. But
since NC members are selected by the Constituencies as such and not
by the GA, the GA
as such has no direct representation on or voice in the NC -- on this
issue it is a parallel group
to the Constituencies as to such recommendations, but no representation
thereon.

On anything other than domain name policies (as noted in VI-B(2)(c)) below, the GA thus has
no direct representation at all -- as noted in VI-B(2)(b) below, "Each recognized Constituency
shall be invited to participate in"  . . . "research or drafting committees, working groups and
other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the
DNSO" -- the GA as such is not so "invited" and has no voice therein. (The DNSO "votes in"
its Directors of ICANN, of course, but such Directors act as individuals and not as representatives
of "the folks what brung them.")  In short, the Constituencies define what "working groups" and the
like that the GA is to have, rather than the GA generating its own, and as shown in IV(a) below,
except for proposing domain name policies or acting as a "group of entities or individuals" to seek
new Constituencies, the GA is . . . what? . . . a debating club?  The "bottom up" theory of
government here seems to be missing a bottom. (Except, of course, that any one of us could at
the same time be members of, participate in, etc., the existing Constituencies and so on.)

Well, that's my initial parsing of this aspect of the Bylaws. That's what it seems to say on paper;
whether what actually happens reflects that is another issue. All and sundry are invited to dissect
my parsing -- errors can be made. Perhaps the GA has a direct voice only in domain name policies
because it is subsumed within the Domain Name Supporting Organization, huh? For a lot of other
things that people are clamoring for, along with considering an Individuals Constituency we might
also consider an ISO -- Individuals Supporting Organization -- there's provisions for new ones
of those, too.  But would that be a function not of the DNSO at all but rather that big purple circle
on the organization chart -- the At Large Membership? Or could it be that the At Large Membership
is the equivalent of an "Individuals Supporting Organization?"  I'll be parsing that purple circle in a
few days.

Bill Lovell
__________

I (8)

Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe
are the best interests of the Corporation and not as representatives of the subordinate entity
that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies.

III
(c) Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent that Constituency on the
NC, no two of whom may be citizens of the same Geographic Region, as defined in Article V,
Section 6, except that, with the consent of the Board, this latter requirement may be suspended
for the term of a particular individual upon a showing that it is impracticable for the Constituency
to obtain such geographic diversity. . . .

III (4)
(a) Any person affected by an action of the Corporation may request review or reconsideration
of that action by the Board. The Board shall adopt policies and procedures governing such
review or reconsideration, which may include threshold standards or other requirements to
protect against frivolous or non-substantive use of the reconsideration process.

IV
(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO, and open to all
who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO.

* * *
(d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC and approved
by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those seats reserved for the DNSO.

VI-B (2)

(a) The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance with Section 3(c) of this Article,
from each Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3 of
this Article.

(b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building process of the DNSO.  It shall
adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, including the designation
of such research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines are
appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. Each recognized Constituency shall be invited
to participate in each of such bodies. Each of such bodies shall provide appropriate means, as determined
by the NC, for input and such participation as is practicable under the circumstances by other interested parties.
. . .

(c) Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider domain name
policies or recommendations. If the NC undertakes consideration of a domain name
topic, or if a Constituency so requests, the NC shall designate one or more research or
drafting committees, or working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic,
and shall set a time frame for the report of such committee or working group. Following
the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a body, the NC may accept the
report or recommendation for submission to the Constituencies for comment and consultation,
or return the report or recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work.
After the report or recommendation is submitted to the Constituencies and the comment period
for the Constituencies has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments to determine whether
there is a basis for a consensus recommendation to the Board.

VI-B (3)
* * *
(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or
separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for public comment pursuant to
Article III, Section 3. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a
petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes
of the Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall
post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable
time for public comment, and not make a 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 Constituency for public comment, it will notify the
names council and     will consider any response to that notification prior to taking action.