RE: [ga] Revised BC Charter In Breach of ICANN's Bylaws ??

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Actually, that's not any better or worse than what they had before. It also,
doesn't solve the problem. NewNet isn't eligible, for the BC, because they
might be better served by a registry constitituency, which won't have them
because they are regligiously incompatible, thus leaving them out even
though they are a legal organization, in the US, practicing a legal
activity. 

This is basically, practicing illegal discrimination under US charter. Can
we say "Jim Crow"? Catholics, Blacks, and Jews need not apply because we are
a WASP church.

ICANN cannot claim to be all-inclusive and they are in violation of the DOC
MoU.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 8:13 AM
|> To: Philip Sheppard
|> Cc: [ga]
|> Subject: [ga] Revised BC Charter In Breach of ICANN's Bylaws ??
|> 
|> 
|> To:    GA Mailing List Members
|> 
|> Article 4 of the revised BC Charter says, in part:
|> 
|> "This [i.e. membership] excludes for-profit entities whose 
|> business means they
|> are likely to formulate views from the perspective of 
|> Internet or Domain Name
|> service providers, as well as from other groups whose 
|> interests may not be
|> aligned with business users.  Such entities may find other 
|> constituencies
|> offer more appropriate means of representing their members' 
|> interests."
|> 
|> Section 3 of ICANN's Bylaws states in part:
|> 
|> THE CONSTITUENCIES
|> (a)    "Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall 
|> determine its own
|> criteria for participation, except that no individual or 
|> entity shall be
|> excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because 
|> of participation
|> in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate to 
|> the maximum
|> extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with
|> procedures designed to ensure fairness."
|> 
|> If you look at the language used in the BC revised Charter, 
|> it specifically
|> EXCLUDES businesses which are ISPs etc. "who may find other 
|> constituencies
|> offer more appropriate means of representing their members' 
|> interests".
|> 
|> That looks like a clear breach of ICANN's bylaws to me.  
|> However, the revised
|> Article has been very carefully worded to suggest that ISPs 
|> etc. have not
|> been excluded merely because of PARTICIPATION in another 
|> constituency.
|> 
|> No, sirree, they have been excluded because they are 
|> ELIGIBLE to participate
|> in another constituency !!
|> 
|> Does this "get them off on a technicality"  (as the criminal 
|> lawyers say) ?
|> I don't think so as that is not fairness to the "maximum 
|> extent possible".
|> 
|> Best regards
|> Patrick Corliss
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> 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-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