Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Vany,

>
>The Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency (and for sure other
>ones) history is, perhaps, very different to the items you mentioned:
>
>1.  NCDNHC was created by ICANN
>2.  Those organizations that requested the creation of NCDNHC made a call
>to other organizations to join the NCDNHC (no mission statement at that
>time, just the idea that the Non-Commercial sector will be represented also
>in ICANN)
>3.  Organizations began to join
>4.  Such organizations worked together to create a charter where, and just
>then, we began to define a mission statement and objectives
>5.  Constituency was finally aprooved.
>
>In fact Peter, there were a constituency (I don't remember which one) that
>was created and then two different groups was self-organizing it, and both
>created a charter with mission statement, etc.   And then ICANN selected
>the group with the best charter, mission statement, etc, for aprooval as a
>constituency.

For the record, that was exactly the NonCommercial Constituency (I'm 
surprised you could forget), and it exactly proves Peter's point, which is 
also mine.

In Berlin 6 of the "initial" 7 Constituencies came with a single proposal, 
while there were two conflicting ones for NonCom. I tried an impossible 
mediation between Milton Muller and David Maher, without success. As a 
consequence, the Board deferred the creation of the NonCom to a later date.

This is exactly the point: we need a proposal for Individuals that can be 
solid enough to be inclusive of the population we address, otherwise any 
other group could work on an alternative proposal that will have similar 
credibility, and we are back to square one.


>
>The bottom line here is that ICANN Board has to create a constituency
>before doing anything else.   Please, note that "create" a constituency is
>not the same as "aprooval" of a constituency.

Please have a second look at the minutes from the Berlin meeting 
(http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-27may99.htm). The Board has *deferred 
consideration* of the proposal for an Individual Constituency until the 
initial Constituency were operational (condition fulfilled) and until it was 
not going to be clarified what relationship would there be between the 
AtLarge and the Individual Constituency.
Hence, the need to work in coordination with Carl Bildt's committee to make 
sure that there's no overlap.


>
>Also, ICANN Board never requested from any constituency a financial
>strcuture, and is not an obligation to have one.   Of course that if after
>aprooval of the constituency, it may happen that expenses are made and that
>such constituency may contribute or not, this is another issue....but such
>issues are not required for the ICANN By-Laws to have a new constituency.
>  Or at least the ICANN By-Laws doesn't specify it.


Again, the answer is in the Berlin meeting, see 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/exhibita.htm. *All* proposals address the 
funding, some a mission statement and all a statement of purpose.
I would play it safe, and make sure that we produce all these elements in 
the proposal for a new constituency.

Regards
Roberto



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
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