Re: [ga] Re: Channels to create an IC

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

Danny and all assembly members,

babybows.com wrote:

> My personal view...
>
> Bill Lovell has raised the issue of the role of the Names Council with
> regard to the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.
>
> Subsequent to the report of the Names Council DNSO Review Task Force, the
> Names Council put forth a Business Plan (20 Feb) which stated (under the
> heading "Strategies"), "Establish an interim committee to propose terms of
> reference for an NC task force or other group to implement the following:
> 5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
> contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
> constituency."
>
> The last Names Council teleconference bore witness to the fact that none of
> the Names Council "Interim Committees" have yet established any "terms of
> reference" for any new project cited in the Business Plan - they are
> "hoping" to get this work accomplished by Stockholm.
>
> Three months to pose the most basic "terms of reference"... This is yet
> another example of the abject failure of the constituency structure model.

  I tend to agree here Danny.

>
> That one set of constituencies can vote to threaten the voting rights of
> other constituencies is still another example of the folly of this
> structure.

  This can become a problem, yes.

>
>
> I remind you that the majority of the members of the Review Working Group
> called for the abolition of this constituency structure (supporting the
> initiative of Director Karl Auerbach to roll the constituencies back into
> the GA on a one-man-one-vote basis).

  The only problem with this is that ICANN would need to change their
bylaws accordingly.  That may be difficult to do in the current atmosphere.
In addition there is suppose to be an @large membership which would seem
to mirror what Karl has in mind here.  It is also reasonable to assume
that some of the current constituencies would indeed object on a number
of valid grounds.

>
>
> It's time to move forward on the basis of conclusions already reached.
> Creating new constituencies does not solve our problems (especially if they
> can't afford to vote).  The Board has expressed its willingness to consider
> structural changes in the DNSO (resolution 01.28).  It is time to push the
> Names Council to get on with its job until such time as it is dissolved and
> replaced by a structure that better guarantees full representation.

  Agreed in your conclusion here.  But your justification is a bit skewed...

>
>
> The only people that I have seen pushing for an Individuals' Constituency
> are the few members of the idno that will occasionally strike up a
> conversation on their own list.

  I have also brought this issue up as well and I am not a member of the IDNO
or IC.

>  When Joop fails to post on this topic on
> the GA list, no one else posts on this topic.  Where is the true measure of
> support?  The idno Chair has not even come forward to support the motion
> recently put forth, and frankly has not even participated on the idno list
> since January.
>
> An effort has been made to discourage bringing up the past history of the
> idno.  This history is an issue that warrants discussion.

  Agreed.

>
>
> Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency is created, the
> idno will be the first organization in line seeking to represent
> individuals.  If they can't get sufficiently organized to present their own
> petition, and have it accepted by the Board, then why should I, or any of
> you, want them representing us?

  Well they wouldn't necessarily be representing "Us". But rather their own
members.

>  The channels are available to them under
> the Bylaws to put forward their own petition.  Let them do so.  No one is
> stopping them.  Perhaps at some point they will actually create a new
> petition for presentation, although I have seen no effort on their own list
> to do this.  I don't see why the GA should support their very transparent
> ploy.

  I caution to characterize anything as a "Ploy" here Danny.  I don't know that
there is any ploy associated with the creation of an IC or IDNO to date.

>
>
> This is not about individuals having a voice, this effort is directed at
> getting idno members seats on the Names Council.   Their website already
> indicates who those NC members will be:  Joop Teernstra, Dinesh Nair, Dennis
> Schaefer.

  Yes they were duly elected.  So this would be normal or natural.

>
>
> Joop's motion will be voted on this coming week.  He and I will jointly
> agree on appropriate language for the ballot question as we are at odds on
> this issue.  While I do not support his motion, the General Assembly will
> make the decision, and I will put forward the position of the GA to the
> Board.
>
> --
> 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