Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

To all.
I am back. It seems my mail has had the impact I wished. Now I want to
explain.

For several days, people have toyed with two ideas:
- motioning to have the Chair elected by the GA
- motioning to fight a decision of the Board (seatsquattering).

I supported the democratic election of the Chair and a bold motion plus
lobbyng as the only for it to happen (it is fully documented that this is the
normal by law upgrade procedure within ICANN).

I suggested that the icann-candidates ML to be used for discussing
BoD decisions, for the reasons developped here by Thomas, rather than
this ML.


Then I found that the petty usual boring comedy was under way once again
-  a few actors were going too far, exciting enthusiats, confusing Chair and
    Seatsquatting issues,  to be sure nothing would happen
-  then accepting my motion but making it a bore, my demand becoming a
    plea, my ultimatum becoming a delayed possibility.

This protection scheme is a well oiled loop: it is permitted because the
ICANN has no Members and it permits the ICANN to run without Members.
This way a few individuals have the power: a new point? let over do it; then
let bury it in a non-vote, this keeps everyone happy, the best being to vote
about voting, and then to vote a study about the way we voted.

I wished to expose these individuals, so I over-over-did it and when called to
the voting order I accepted it as supposedly a way to over-over-over-doing it
what they had to cool down. The rest is public mail.

BTW ...

I maintain my seconded motion demanding the Chair of the DNSO to
be elected from today on by the DNSO/GA.
Jefsey


At 12:00 06/11/00, you wrote:
>On 2000-11-05 15:12:05 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > IMHO this petty, poor and boring comedy should be simply
> > addressed in having a petition signed during the MDR meeting to
> > sue the ICANN, demanding the respect of the CA law regarding the
> > Members. ie that every person sharing into the process of
> > electing a Board Director is a Member. A non profit organization
> > without Member and a permanent "interim" board, changing the very
> > nature of the Board at unexpected will, is pure joke.
>
> > As Esther Dyson says, it has no legitimacy.
>
>Don't mix up legitimacy (which is certainly problematic) and
>legality (which is just an open question).

IMHO you may not question the legality of a legitimate move. You
should question every iligitimate moves, even legal. This is just a
side thinking.

>Some even say that the "At Large Members trick" in the bylaws -
>basically, don't put elections into the bylaws, but do a board
>decision instead - may be a nice and effective way to work around
>the California law's provisions.  One comment I heared was: "if that
>law really looks like this, it's just inviting work-arounds".
>
> > We need members (@large plus representative entities) as an ICANN
> > GA, the by laws changes to be approved by the ICANN GA, as
> > anywhere else in the world. Such an action could be carried
> > through a Political Action Comity or equivalent (I propose ICAPAC
> > for a name easy to recall and make press), with a Membership fee
> > of $100 to pay for the costs. I am ready to subscribe.
>
>I do agree with you that the current process for bylaw changes is
>inappropriate, and should be changed in a way which makes it much
>harder for the board to change the rules of the game.
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>--
>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@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