Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

[Eric Dierker <Eric@hi-tek.com>]

Slow down please.
Please review other "SO" restrictions and liberties. This may look like a leap
forward but I along with members of the US committees and DoC are concerned with
procedural and actual proper representation and  due process.
Argued from the point of getting it through, this proposal has ceded it's power
back to the NC.

" members whose unique identities have been verified,(no way, the NC is left to
determine the criteria) shall select its chair annually, and at such other times
as the chair shall become vacant." What? no no no, reversion perhaps, interim
perhaps, pro tem perhaps but not lame duck. especially if it is due to (i)(B).

(i)(B) The Board may, with concurrence of a majority of all of its members,
whether voting or not, remove the Chair of the General Assembly for good
cause shown. (the argument was we could have a wing nut as chair. How does it
follow the NC decides when a Chair needs to be removed? When they question the
NC? (Yikes whether voting or not?????) That is carte Blanche.

I love the work that went into this but in that they were redrafted by a word
expert these gaping holes should be reviewed, and not lightly.

Look at the IP's by laws they get to decide who is in or out as members much
less their own reps.  They even get to have a bylaw that says that any
recommendation made to the BoD of  ICANN reflect their views. This proposal
requires we are lap dogs of the NC.

Sincerely,


Joanna Lane wrote:

> Mr Connolly,
> I congratulate you on a fine piece of work. I have queries as follows:-
> 1) May I ask you please why you feel (i)B is necessary?
> 2) What is "good cause" ?
> 2) Should we not add co-chair/ alternate chair ?
> Thanks,
> Joanna Lane
>
> I do not believe that we need to adopt two resolutions. One will suffice;
> and while the resolution will need to be addressed to the ICANN board, we
> should also seek the endorsement of the NC and send that endorsement to the
> Board with the resolution.
>
> I will also apologize for having taken a lawyer's chisel to the resolution,
> but I think we need to present the Board with something in a form which they
> can, if they agree, adopt without too much editorial work.
>
> Here is my proposal:
>
> Whereas, the General Assembly exists as an open forum for participation in
> the work of the DNSO by any and all interested participants; and
> Whereas, the utility of the General Assembly has been impaired by apathy on
> the part of its participants and expressions from within and without that
> the General Assembly serves no useful purpose other than to lend a veneer of
> legitimacy to the decisions and actions of the DNSO and the corporation; and
> Whereas, a recurrent complaint with respect to the General Assembly is its
> inability to select its own chair, which has contributed to the General
> Assembly having been devalued by its membership and disregarded by the
> Internet Community,
>
> Now, therefore, Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the Domain Name
> Supporting Organization:
>
> The Board of the corporation is respectfully requested to adopt the
> following resolution or its substantial equivalent:
>
> Resolved, That Sub-Section 2(i) of the Bylaws of the corporation be amended
> by striking out the whole thereof, and providing in lieu thereof:
>
> (i)(A) The General Assembly, in such manner as it may select by resolution
> and approved by the Names Council, provided that such manner provides a full
> and equal opportunity for online participation by members whose unique
> identities have been verified, shall select its chair annually, and at such
> other times as the chair shall become vacant.
>
> (i)(B) The Board may, with concurrence of a majority of all of its members,
> whether voting or not, remove the Chair of the General Assembly for good
> cause shown.
> ===end of resolution===
>
> We should at the same time adopt and transmit a statement of our reasons for
> this change, in rather more detail than is set out in the preamble
> (whereases). While the request and supporting statement should be presented
> to the Board, we should seek the endorsement of the NC for this proposal.
>
> Kevin J. Connolly
> Attorney and Counselor at Law
> Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
> 1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
> New York, NY 10104
> 212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
> This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with
> an invoice.
>
> Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
>      Love, like you've never been hurt.....
>           And dance, like no one's watching.
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ***
> The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
> and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
> product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
> and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
> munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
> cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
> at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
> ****************************************************************************
> ***
> --
> 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

--
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