Re: [ga] GA representation on the Names Council

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 08:59:08PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 10:28 PM 17/11/1999 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >
> >The constituencies are not arbitrary.  They were arrived at 
> >through a long and painful process.
> >
> Many people who were part of that process and formulated the Paris Draft,
> and later , in Singapore, supported  the CENTR proposal found themselves
> arbitrarily excluded by the ICANN Board.

There was a great deal that preceeded the Paris Draft, which was
crafted with no input by a handful of people in a room.  The other
drafts that preceeded it had far wider coverage.  The CENTR proposal
was a Johny-come-lately derivative of the "Irish Proposal", and in
fact, the source of the current structure of the GA -- you got what
you asked for, in that regard. 

>  Painful, yes.  
> Also do not forget the effect of the bylaws promising, nay, inviting those
> not part of the originally ordained constituencies, to petition the Board
> for recognition of further constituencies.

"petition" does not guarantee recognition.  The caution on the part 
of the Board as far as your IDNO is concerned has been justified in 
full measure.

> Are you now saying that that provision in the bylaws was just there for
> decoration, to get the nod from NTIA?

No.  That provision is in the bylaws for realistic and serious
attempts to form new constituencies.  It is not, however, for private
clubs like you are trying to create.  Furthermore, the question of
whether there should be an IDNOC in particular is intertwined with
the question of the at-large membership and the question of what
happens with the GA.  Those are serious questions, and they don't go
away just because you want them to. 

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