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

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Hi Roberto, Chuck and all:

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Vany,
>
> I agree with Chuck.
> Motions with no new elements will not achieve any result.
The By-Laws are clear in the procedures

> The Board will not create any new constituency unless there is wide evidence
> of the support for it. And by "support" I don't mean the usual statement by
> a few dozen individuals, or the moral support of the NC, I mean a real
> "project", potentially able to attract membership by the hundreds (better if
> by the thousands).
Again, the By-Laws are clear.

> Something that cannot be achieved unless we change the approach
> "qualitatively". A possibility, that I have proposed in the past and that
> did not gather a lot of enthusiasm, was to contact membership organizations
> that have an internet focus (or at least a HiTech focus), like ISOC, ACM,
> Universities, ...
> I still think that this is the only way to progress.
Also the By-Laws are clear in this point and I proposed to the NCDNHC a
resolution with a petition to add a IDNH constituency.  As you may know,
ISOC, ACM, university amongst other organizatios are members of the
NCDNHC.  But, of course, this proposal will begin a period of discussion
in the NCDNHC and then voted.

> But, of course, if the chosen course of action is to gather the usual 50
> signatures on a petition, feel free to count me in. I've signed so many
> useless petitions in my life that one more, one less, does not matter (and
> this one has the advantage of not asking for a cash contribution at the same
> time).
Thanks Roberto,

Please take in count that the procedure described in the
By-Laws are very clear regarding adding new constituencies.  This is not about
showing new elements or not.  The ICANN By-Laws says that followed a
request of a new constituency (and the BY-Laws doesn't specify a minimum
of group of individuals or group of organizations is needed to make such a
request), ICANN has to open for Public Comment such Petition.

Of course, I am not opossed and I am agree that will be helpfull for the
period of Public Comments that a petion of this nature be accompained with
documents pertaining IDNHC subject, but, for me is clear from the By-Laws
that a simple and clean petition is enough in order to begin such process.

Cheers
Vany
:-)

>
>
> >From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>
> >To: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
> >Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed"  ???
> >Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 14:42:39 +0000 (UTC)
> >
> >Hi Chuck:
> >
> >When the constiuecnies were created, there wasn't any group formed yet.
> >All constituencies were organized after they creation by the ICANN Board,
> >not before.  This means that individuals doesn't have to be organized
> >before the ICANN Board decides to add an individual constituencie.  What
> >IDNO and other organizations and individuals are asking to ICANN Board is
> >that recognizes the need of a Constituency that represents the interests
> >of the Individual Domain Names Holders.  Once the ICANN Board recognize
> >such need and creates a new constituency, then, and only then, the groups
> >interested in concrete such constituency by means of a charter begins to
> >organize themselves for futher approoval of the ICANN Board of such
> >charter.
> >
> >The steps decribed above was the procedures almost all constituencies
> >followed, including the Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency.
> >
> >If ICANN Board have the intention to create a new Constituency that
> >representes the Individual Domain Names Owners, then they should make a
> >resolution of such intentions and instruct publicly all the requirements
> >and procedures to follow for those groups that wish to organize such new
> >constituency.
> >
> >Best Regards
> >Vany
> >:-)
> >
> >On Wed, 9 May 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > The Bylaws already allow for the creation of a new constituency but the
> > > board would have to approve the addition which would result in an
> >amendment
> > > to the Bylaws as I understand it.  As you said very well below, nothing
> >will
> > > convince the board and the NC more than proof of a solid, representative
> > > organization already in place and ready to go.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:26 PM
> > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > Cc: [ga]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???
> > >
> > >
> > > Mr. Gomes:
> > >
> > > Well said. "Rhetoric" is what's been happening for years, some
> >constructive
> > > and some back alley scrapping. The idea that our rushing to a "vote"
> > > (although I've noted that I'm in favor of having this little "yeah, nay"
> >bit
> > > just to see where the land lies) will accomplish anything is naive to
> >the
> > > extreme. Too much personality, grinding old axes, and so on, without
> > > much show of solidarity. Each blast from Party A at Party B adds more
> > > to the image. So far as I've been able to tell, there are, indeed, no
> >means
> > > established here for having a definitive "vote" on anything, nor even
> >the
> > > slightest notion of what would be done with the results of the vote
> >except
> > > ship it off to ICANN and watch it headed right for the round file.
> > >
> > > Other than the Business Constituency and IDNO and the like, after poring
> > > over the ICANN pages I've seen no web sites presenting the credentials
> > > of any "constituency" or any authoritative listing of what or who the
> > > various
> > > constituencies are, other than the listings of the Supporting
> >Organizations
> > > and
> > > the original listing out of the Bylaws which lists bodyless names (ccTLD
> > > Registries, Commercial and Business entities, ISPs and connectivity
> > > providers, Non-commercial domain name holders, Registrars, and.
> > > Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests). The
> >thing
> > > with ICANN is that if you're not on that list, or authoritatively
> >identified
> > > with some line on that list, you're toast.  I've seen no recognition
> >that
> > > since
> > > the constituencies are defined in the Bylaws, if one wants to create a
> >new
> > > constituency one must amend the Bylaws -- you go in and pore through
> > > them to see how that is done, and you direct your efforts towards that
> > > rather than burn up more septillions of electrons expounding ideas (some
> > > good, some dreadful) and hassling other list members.
> > >
> > > This "I demand the right to vote" tack, with no thought towards what
> > > comes next, is utterly amateurish, and is taken quite properly as a sign
> > > that "that bunch has no idea what it's doing and can be ignored."  It is
> > > not enough to exclaim that "ICANN has been told to run itself 'bottom
> > > up' so that somehow, and magically, 'it must allow an individual domain
> > > name holder constituency,' since it does have mechanisms by which
> > > people can be heard, if those steps were only utilized. It's all a
> >matter
> > > of process, i.e., using the right one.
> > >
> > > One follows the ICANN mechanisms, not just expound rhetoric at an
> > > ICANN meeting and be ignored. One tries to garner support from the
> > > other SOs.  One lobbies the Directors, one by one, remembering that
> > > ICANN does NOT operate by representative government -- the Board
> > > members placed there by particular SOs are not there to represent the
> > > SO that did so; they are there to "advance the good of the Corporation"
> > > (or words to that effect).
> > >
> > > The ICANN constituency list has been locked in stone since day one, in
> > > its Bylaws, and it will stay that way until organized and concerted
> >effort
> > > is
> > > made to amend those Bylaws.
> > >
> > > Bill Lovell
> > >
> > > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am one who supports the possible value of an individual domain name
> > > > holders constituency but as I said publicly in Melbourne, I don't
> >believe
> > > > that discussing it and passing motions that there should be one will
> > > > accomplish much.  That has all happened in the past and look where we
> >are.
> > > >
> > > > If you really want to make this happen, then organize such a
> >constituency
> > > > and then you will be able to clearly demonstrate with objective data
> >its
> > > > viability, its representativeness, etc.  Neither the NC nor the ICANN
> > > board
> > > > is going to do this for you and it seems highly unlikely that they
> >will
> > > > approve a new constituency without evidence beyond simple rhetoric.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@corliss.net]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 10:56 PM
> > > > To: William X. Walsh
> > > > Cc: [ga]
> > > > Subject: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???
> > > >
> > > > Hi William
> > > >
> > > > Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all tone
> > > down
> > > > personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity for
> >consensus.
> > > >
> > > > I also note your own personal support of a constituency for individual
> > > > domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on this one.  Many
> > > others
> > > > are also.  Those that have said so specifically seem to me to include:
> > > >
> > > > In favour:
> > > > Joop Ternstra
> > > > William X. Walsh
> > > > Roeland Meyer
> > > > Joe Kelsey
> > > > Marc Schneiders
> > > > Patrick Corliss
> > > > Leah Gallegos
> > > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > > Andrew McMeikan
> > > > Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
> > > > Eric Dierker
> > > > Jeff Williams
> > > >
> > > > Opposed:
> > > > nobody
> > > >
> > > > Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider
> >putting
> > > it
> > > > to a vote?
> > > >
> > > > Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Patrick Corliss
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> > > > To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> > > > Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:36 AM
> > > > Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
> > > holders'
> > > > constituency (IC)
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Joop,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:21:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > > > > If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then
> > > perhaps
> > > > > > the motion is better off without your "support".
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means, that you are in it
> > > > > more for the personal glory than for the concept of getting a real
> > > > > individual's constituency created in the DNSO.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you truly want to see an individual's constituency adopted, with
> > > > > as broad support as would be needed to get this controversial issue
> > > > > push forward, then you would well do to set your personal issues
> > > > > aside, and remove the IDNO from any considerations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd hate to see the IDNO issue become a subject of debate again,
> > > > > especially at this very important moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > But there are enough people who share the concerns with regard to
> >the
> > > > > IDNO itself that any effort to make the IDNO even a small focus of
> > > > > this movement will meet with solid and loud opposition.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it really worth it for this little personal glory, Joop?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think deep down you are a bigger person than that.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > William X Walsh
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>

-- 
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-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