RE: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

This is good to see, Andrew slinking out of the darkness.  You should
spend more time here Andrew, you might learn something.

It's called democracy in action.  ICANN's screwups are it's legacy, and
it's board members are the liability.

Regards
Joe

On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:

> Michael:
> 
> The DNSO GA is specific to the DNSO, just as the ASO GA is specific to the
> ASO and the PSO GA is specific to the PSO.  [Unlike the DNSO, the ASO and
> PSO have defined their "General Assemblies" as annual open meetings, not as
> standing entities.]  Conceptually, the DNSO GA is the aggregate of all
> individuals involved in the DNSO.  None of the three Supporting Organization
> GAs has any role in choosing the 9 At Large Directors on the ICANN Board,
> just as none of the three SO Councils has any role in choosing the 9 At
> Large Directors.  That's because the three SOs otherwise choose the other 9
> ICANN Directors.
> 
> The 9 At Large Directors are to be chosen by an At Large Membership.  The
> ICANN Board has defined the At Large Membership in Article II of the Bylaws
> <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#II>;  and adopted resolutions at
> each of its last three meetings -- in Los Angeles
> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-4nov99.htm#membership>, in
> Santiago
> <http://www.icann.org/santiago/santiago-resolutions.htm#anchor21816>, and in
> Berlin <http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#3>.  ICANN
> sought funding from various sources to finance the launch of the At Large
> Membership structure;  in November, the Markle Foundation announced that it
> would contribute $200,000 to finance it
> <http://www.icann.org/at-large/markle-proposal-21oct99.htm>.  Since then,
> ICANN has hired a project manager and technical consultants to build the
> back-end for membership registration and voting;  we're preparing to launch
> the Membership Implementation Task Force to assist with recruitment and
> outreach;  and the Board is preparing to resolve remaining membership &
> election policy issues at its next meeting, in Cairo in March.  See
> <http://www.icann.org/cairo2000/cairo-details.htm#agenda>.
> 
> Nothing squirmy here.  It's all there in black-and-white, as it has been for
> months, collected on the ICANN page for At Large Membership
> <http://www.icann.org/at-large/at-large.htm>.
> 
> --Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> [ -----Original Message-----
> [ From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Michael
> [ Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [ Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:24 PM
> [ To: Kent Crispin
> [ Cc: ga@dnso.org
> [ Subject: Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules
> [ 
> [ 
> [ This is contrary to my understanding of the facts.  I may be wrong, but
> [ I understood that membership in the GA was the primary means of
> [ establishing membership in the voting pool for at-large Board members.
> [ 
> [ If this is not correct, could someone please point me to the relevant
> [ document(s)?  I would be the first to admit that it is no longer possible
> [ to keep up with the ways in which ICANN continually squirms on the subject
> [ of what constitutes the general membership, so I am prepared to be
> [ corrected on this.
> [ 
> [ On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> [ [...]
> [ 
> [ > It is you who has the apples and pianos.  There are *no* significant
> [ > rights inherent in GA "membership", just as there are *no* significant
> [ > rights inherent in IETF "membership".  In fact, "membership" is not well
> [ > defined for either organization.  This is an important and fundamental
> [ > concept, and until you understand it you will be shadow boxing with
> [ > ghosts.
> [ > 
> [ 
> [ Incidentally, this is also, as I understand it, not a true statement about
> [ the IETF, since "membership" (established by attending 2 meetings in the
> [ right time frame) entitles one to be be eligible to volunteer for a
> [ nominating committee, selected at random from among the volunteers, which
> [ will choose six IAB members. RFC 1601. The IETF thus has very important
> [ input into the membership of the IAB, making the IAB responsible to the
> [ IETF membership.  This is an important and fundamental concept, and until
> [ you understand it....
> [  
> [ 
> [ -- 
> [ 
> [ A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> [ U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> [ +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.t
> m
> [                         -->It's warm here.<--
> [ 
> [ 
> [ 
>