RE: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@corenic.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:44 AM

>  I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or 
> direction for the
>  names council to be involved in the formation process of any 
> constituancy
>  but rather a directive that the process be one of 
> self-organization by any
>  prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
>  handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition 
> is facilitated
> by
>  interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.

This has already occurred. There has been action taken to present such a
constituency to the ICANN BoD. IMHO, the Board's in-action has caused
irreparable harm to that group. I am sure that was their intent. Lack of
recognition, or any response, for two consecutive meetings (Berlin and
Santiago) has caused this irreparable damage. Anyone experienced in social
dynamics could have predicted the consequences of such delay and lack of
support. Any new constituency is and will be fragile and need early support.
Without it, it dies, always. The Board chose deliberatly to not support any
form of individual constituency by in-action. They did this, knowing full
well, the consequences of such in-action (unless I give the Board too much
credit). Every other constituency had early support from the Board. Yet, the
Board chose not to support a individuals constituency.

>  i do not understand why you or any prospective member of an individual
>  constituancy would want the names council involved in 
> facilitating this formation process.

We are not asking the NC to support this. Rather, it is suggested as an
independent GA activity. The GA can't vote a NC rep, the GA can't effect
policy, the GA can't even elect it's own chair. Just *what* do you expect
the GA to do? WHY ARE WE HERE?!?! There is NO independent/individual domain
name holders constituency and the NC isn't complete until there is one.
Those of us in the GA recognise that. It has been voted on, and commented
on, there is no lack of support. We have the spirit and soul, now we must
make a body. Where else but the GA, which isn't allowed to do anything else,
anyway?

>  it would seem more appropriate to me that this 
> self-formation process be
>  managed and facilitated by the parties who are seeking 
> constituancy status
>  rather than members of other constituancies which are 
> currently represented
>  on the names
>  council. this would avoid any future criticism of "micro-managing" or
>  "manipulation" of this constituancy formation process.

Simply, as atonement. In order to redress the irreparable harm that the
ICANN BoD inflicted on the last attempt at self-organization, by its
scornful neglect, in Berlin and Santiago. This is a neglect that carries
through unto this very day and is exacerbated by your response. Even now,
your response attempts to mis-represent the facts, to plead a different case
than what is actually being attempted, quoting inapplicable by-laws, in an
attempt to quash this activity.

While we're at it, I think that it would be a very good idea for the GA to
be able to elect at least one BoD member. Failing that, a couple of NC
representitives from the GA would be nice.

--
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