Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 03:56:15PM +0200, Michael Froomkin wrote:
[...]
> As noted by many others in this thread, Sexton and Teernstra (yes,
> nominated for tactical reasons by people with vested interests we should
> all suspect) were in fact representative of
> constituences otherwise denied a seat at the table, and still denied a
> seat at the table to this day.

This statement is meaningless.  See below.

> If we are to rely
> on the "spirit" of the text rather than its letter (and I agree this is
> not in
> any way a ridiculous position for anyone to take) then it seems to me
> that the spirit of representation was well served by these nominations. 
> I gather you do not agree.  May I ask why?

The term "constituency" actually has two meanings in these 
discussions -- 1) one of the components of the DNSO formally 
recognized in the ICANN bylaws -- the "big C" Constituencies; and 2) 
the generic term for any group that might be considered to have an 
interest in these proceedings -- the "little c" constituencies.

The number of big C Constituencies denied a seat at the table is
zero. 

The number of little c constituencies is infinite, and therefore the
number of them "denied a seat at the table" is infinite.  Sexton and
Joop have no a priori right to be considered over the other infinity
of little c constituencies.

Furthermore, the little c constituencies supposedly represented by
Sexton and Teernstra are not big C Constituencies for a *very* good
reason -- both have been discussed since the very beginning of the
DNSO formation, and both have remained contentious and as yet
unapproved.  They may likely never be approved.

>> opinion) the ICANN counsel on one side, and the NC on the other (decided to
>> allow the three gTLD (NSI) reps in as full `NC members. Most of us noted that
>> this was clarly against community consensus, passt compromises and any logi.
> 
> The relevant community of which I am aware professes to be for
> inclusion.  Yet important sets of constituencies are excluded.  

Arguably, they are not.  For example, an argument against the IDNOC
is that individuals will elect half the ICANN board, and therefore 
individuals already have more representation than any single 
Constituency, and thus it would be unfair to have an IDNOC in addition.

> It does not comport with the spirit of
> inclusion -- it's just 3 NSI employees.  Why ICANN and indpendent
> thinkers such as yourslef should find that better than people like
> Sexton and Teenstra is a great puzzle to me.  Can you explain?  

The 3 NSI employees are actually members of a real Constituency,
recognized by the bylaws; Sexton and Teenstra are not. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain