Re: [ga] Intense individual constituency activity (some men love the internet)

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

For all us who were not here in 1999, and I understand that to be at
least 99% of the watchers, please read the following to see how far we
have come, --NOT.  These two gentlemen's patience is beyond me.  I find
no reference to Corliss, myself or Mr. Walsh in this early date archive.
but Wow there is a lot of Karl, Milton and Jeff.  Maybe it is time for
other newbies to consider that Jeff's ban was really a result of old
political alliances.  Mine of course was the result of new ones.  I
promise you that an hour of reflection in these old archives will change
you and help all of our understanding of more than just this list.
An example;
Gene Marsh To Esther Dyson
:
>- Why have you not responded to the formal request to you and the ICANN

board to re-evaluate the TLDA position as a gTLD DNSO Constituency?  You

committed to me an answer on this topic in the first week of June.

It is our duty to move forward and learn from the past.

Jeff Williams on behalf of INEgroup back on 8/10/99;


  INEGRoup is not in favor of this amendment as currently drafted.

  The Vote was as follows:    IN Favor: 14%  Not In Favor:79% Abstain:
7%

 Reasoning:  The proposed amendment resolution to section 2(a) of
                      article VI-B is insufficient to adequately be
representative
                       of the stakeholders in that it allows for an
unelected
                       ICANN (Initial?) Interim board to make this
determination,
                       and therefore is a disenfranchisement of the
Stakeholders
                       as outlined in the White Paper.  Hence we find
this Proposed
                       amendment in violation of such.

Yea lets ban this guy who has fought for correct guidance and adherence
to the rule of law and by-laws since there was an ICANN.

I had a natural tendancy to side with Mr. Williams due to our mutual
excile but after a short time in these deep archives I found a reason to
apologize that we, us dotcommoners, were not with him when we should
have been from the beginning, we can and shall make a difference.
>

Milton and all

  Excellent comments here Milton.  I could not agree more.  I will
pass these on to our [INEGroup] board for review as well, I am fairly
sure that
they will meet with their approval.

  IT seems that this ICANN (Initial?) Interim board again, and continues

to demonstrate that they care nothing for their responsibilities to the
requirements of the White Paper and the MoU as well with this sort
of "Top Down" structure.

Milton Mueller wrote:

> The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power
> in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and
> its constituents.
>
> The amendment to Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws
> allows the ICANN Board to resolve disputes about which member of
> a constituency is recognized as a Names Council member. Such
> disputes should be resolved by the constituency itself,
> according to their own rules.
>
> The amendment to Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws
> deals with two issues. On the question of geographical
> diversity, the ICANN Board has created distrust by its apparent
> willingness to make exceptions for trademark interests and other
> big business constituents. Once again, I would prefer not to see
> discretionary power in the hands of the board. Either enforce
> geographical diversity or don't. On the second question, while I
> agree with the provision that a constituency cannot have more NC
> representatives than it has members, I do not agree with
> limiting the number of nominations a member can make.
>
> The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f)
> of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN
> Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office.
> Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for
> placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of
> the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own
> methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is
> too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this
> provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to
> reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members.
>
> --
> m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/


Jeff Williams wrote:

> Bill and all assembly members,
>
>   Yes.  And more importantly the comments filed or posted at:
> http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-dnso/maillist.html
> wold be worth reviewing as well...
>
> William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > Take a look at http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.
> > Last updated June 1999.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > --
> > 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

--
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