Re: [ga] Re: Ballot

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

I'm staying out of this debate, having already said my piece on the
procedure I recommend, but wish to mention another issue that
has come up in other private discussions and which might (eventually)
help a part of this.  That is, I am told on good authority that
the word
"constituency" does not translate well into other languages, so we
should either use another word or get rid of it altogether.

I suggest we just say who the people are: Domain Name Holders,
Trademark Owners, Registrars, Resident Iconoclasts, etc.  That
does not touch this "acknowledge - approve in principle" issue,
but it would resolve (or would have resolved) the other one. Just
as now, that would not mean that one would have to be one or
the other in order to join (as required, e.g., in this new TLD thing
outside of ICANN -- you have to own a TLD, which is quite
the thing to do in that context), but only that one wished to
become involved in matters that concern the particular bunch
(or wanted to check up on what they were doing!).

However, this is neither the time nor the mechanism to do that. The
word "constituency" was not a GA creation, but appears in the
By-Laws, so I am just throwing this in for future reference.

Bill Lovell

Joop Teernstra wrote:

At 07:56 19/05/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:>I would suggest that we leave out:  ****or the "approval in principle" ****>>Now it reads:>>The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the>immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN Board>in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends>to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an Individuals'>Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm plenary>session.>>/Bruce>Dear Bruce,I would like the original additional option ("approval in principle") to be part of the wording of my motion.This is the smaller step, easier to take for the Board. "Creation" by the Board, is likely to be referred back to the NC for "advice".
 I am willing to clarify the motion so that no doubt exists that we are talking about "Domain Name Holders" and not Individual "users".Jefsey wants this clarification.Clarified motion for the ballot:The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for theimmediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a constituency of Individual Domain Name holders)  by the ICANN Board in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an Individuals' Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision atthe Stockholm plenary session.Agree/Disagree
 
 
 
 
 

--Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/