[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: ORG divestiturepolicy nears completion!

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Vany and all,

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> Hi Don and all
>
> Don Heath wrote:
> >
> > At 07:07 PM 1/4/02 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >More responses to Don's comments:
> > >
> > > >>> Don Heath <heath@isoc.org> 01/04/02 06:42PM >>>
> > > > Suppose a non profit organization decided to enter
> > > > the fray, they were selected, and then found themselves in a position
> > > > where the registrants voted out the senior management provided by
> > > > the selected organization.  I can tell you that any entity desiring to be
> > > > selected as the sponsoring organization for the .ORG registry, would
> > > be > at least slightly frightened by such logic.
> > >
> > >I have settled this issue with Ken Stubbs. The current language does
> > >not REQUIRE that Board members be elected by registrants, it
> > >allows applicants to propose EITHER that, OR election of a
> > >policy council, or BOTH. So any applicant that feels the way
> > >you do can avoid proposing an officers' election.
> > >
> > >We will revise the language slightly to make that clearer.
> >
> > Great.
>
> The governance structure, I suppouse it is only for control policy
> making inside .ORG
> and not for control de organization itself...right?

  I don't think so Vany.  You can't effect the former without controlling
the latter.

>
>
> Because, lets say that XYZ non-profit organization decides to apply.
> XYZ probabley is an organization stablished already for non-profit
> purposes several years ago and now they are applying
> to .ORG.  I assume that the language above is not about letting
> registrants
> to control the organization XYZ. The idea is XYZ stablish an structure
> separate from their own activities, in order Registrants control the
> Policy Making
> Process of .ORG.

  This would not work if the management structure of your XYZ Organization
as a non-profit is not governed by the registrants should XYZ Organization
management structure be separate and yet also be the registry for .ORG.

>
>
> I think that such language can be clarified by adding anywhere something
> like:
>
> "The Policy Making Process of .ORG will be controlled by .ORG
> Registrants by
> means of a governance structure that applicants are encouraged to
> propose"

  Sounds good but would require new law to adequately effect, at least
in the US or the UK...

>
>
> If the Sponsored model would be adopted, part of the task of the Sponsor
> Organization enforced by the Sponsorship Agreement
> is actually to settup a governance structure for the Policy Making on
> .ORG!!!

  In part yes this would be so or true.  However for this to be effective
and meet current corp. law in the US, than your XYZ organization would
also have to be answerable directly to the Registrants.  In effect
a registrants general council where any and all of the registrants are
or can be members without restriction...

>
>
> > > >>  Nevertheless, applicant
> > > >>  organizations should be able to demonstrate support and participation
> > > >>  from a significant number of international noncommercial .org
> > > >>  registrants. The organization's policies and practices should strive to
> > > >>  be  responsive to and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user
> > > >>  community, and reflect as much of its diversity as possible.
> > >
> > > > This is VERY exclusive and looks as though it was designed to fit some
> > > > organization that is yet to be formed!?!?!
> > >
> > >It seems to be INclusive to me. It asks applicants to gain support from
> > >a wide variety of the noncommercial community.
> >
> > Well, if you had not clipped out the part I was referring to, my comment
> > would be more clear.  Here's the part of the paragraph you clipped.  I
> > would have immediately preceded the part you did include above, beginning
> > with "Nevertheless."
> >
> >   "1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> >   organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. We
> >   recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views
> >   about policy and management, and that no single organization can fully
> >   encompass the diversity of global civil society."
> >
> > My comment was based on the fact that VERY few non profit organizations are
> > "controlled" by noncommercial .org registrants!
>
> Agree with you Don!!!
>
> I think it would be improoved if this paragraph says something like:
>
> "The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> organization or consortium (asociation, or whatever the right
> name in English is) of organizations that works for the non-commercial
> community with international representation, if possible, in the
> all the five regions defined by ICANN

  Bad idea Vany!  This is too weak and has too many holes in it...


>
>
> > >As for "some organization that is yet to be formed," no, this is a policy
> > >criterion we would like to be imposed on ANY organization. The new ORG
> > >administrator must be responsive to, representative of, and supportive of
> > >the noncommercial .org registrant community broadly. Surely you don't
> > >disagree with that?
> >
> > As I point out, VERY few organizations can make the claim required by the
> > full statement!
> Agree with Don also here.
>
> I think it is preferable to talk about "composition" and/or
> "representation" defined
> by geographical diversity (defined by the five ICANN regions) instead
> of ask for a "significant support" that no one can claim to have, adding
> to the fact
> that such an statement doesn't provide an explanation about what it
> means "significant
> support" in terms of numbers.

  Well it is generally considered that significant support equates to
51%...

>
>
> Still I have more comments in other statements of .ORG draft.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
> :-)
>
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
> Information Technology Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
> Tel: (507) 317-0169
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
>
> Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
> Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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