[ga] RE: More BC Shenanigans

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Danny,

Has there ever been a formal complaint to ICANN with regard to any Bylaws
violations?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 1:01 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: cgomes@verisign.com; jefsey@wanadoo.fr; bmjames@swbell.net
Subject: Re: More BC Shenanigans


Dear Chuck,

Part of the problem within the BC is that decisions are made without the 
benefit of a vote of the membership.   For example, on the "Issue Management

Procedures" page of the BC website it states:

"Solidarity:
BC members shall abide by approved positions and the BC representatives to 
the Names Council will be required to support such positions en bloc."

There was never a vote taken on this... and even if a vote were to be taken,

it would not be representative of the business community as the voice of 
small business is not to be heard within the Business Constituency.

If the BC Charter is to be re-drafted, one NC member should always represent

small business, another medium-sized businesses, and the other large 
business.  This would be entirely appropriate as small and medium-sized 
businesses account for more than two-thirds of all domain name
registrations. 
 

Unfortunately, the BC will never reform itself into anything more than a 
power-bloc that promotes the interests of Telcoms and intellectual property 
groups.  A few active members dominate the constituency, and have every 
reason to continue abusing their power to the detriment of the rest of the 
business community.   

During the entire time that I was subscribed to the BC mailing list, I never

received one email from anyone other than Phil Sheppard, Marilyn Cade or the

BC Secretariat.  There is no dialogue amongst the current members because 
they can't be bothered to participate.  Every three months they are afforded

the opportunity for a business-paid junket to an exotic corner of the world,

and that is the full extent of their involvement.

When the BC reps claim that they are in consultation with the membership, 
they are only in consultation with themselves.  There is certainly no 
dialogue on the BC list (which, of course, is one of the reasons why it is 
not publicly archived).   The constituency is a sham.  It is a vertiable 
clone of the Intellectual Property constituency, and in truth, those two 
groups should be merged as they are nothing more than two sides of the same 
coin.

While the membership roster of constituencies like the Non-Commercial 
continues to grow at a steady pace due to ongoing efforts at outreach, the 
membership roster of the BC shrinks rapidly.  There is no outreach, only 
lip-service paid to the need to involve small businesses.

It is no wonder that in this environment, no small business seeks to be 
associated with the BC.  There is no possibility of involvement if small 
business concerns can routinely be voted down "en bloc".

The BC is a cabal, not a constituency.  There have been a sufficient number 
of Charter violations to warrant revoking their membership in the DNSO until

such time as the deficiencies are cured, and there are certainly questions 
with respect to lost paperwork and their handling of finances that would 
probably warrant an audit.






--
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