RE: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Chuck:

On Wed, 9 May 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Vany,
>
> I understand that.  That was because the initial constituencies were
> preselected and listed in the Bylaws.  That is not the case for any new
> constituencies that may be added.
Then the ICANN Board might clear and publish which are the steps and
procedures to add a new constituency in the DNSO.

> I am not suggesting that the Bylaws specifically require the organization to
> be established before acceptance nor can I speak for the board or the NC.  I
> was just suggesting that the case for a new constituency would be greatly
> strengthened if the constituency could show that it is already organized and
> that it represents a good representation of individual domain name holders.
Then in this case, the Board should express the willingness to listen
and/or read such proofs.  The Board should clarify to all of us which are
the procedures to request to them the opportunity to be listened again by
the ICANN Board regarding such subject.  For example: send a letter (by
e-mail and/or printed?) with the signature of all the ones that supports
an Individual Domain Names Holders Constituency?, maybe reach personally
to one ICANN Board Director, so this ICANN Board Director brings this to
the table to be discussed and voted?, maybe the GA first have to pass a
resolution to be delivered to the Names Council then the Names Council
pass it to the ICANN Board through our DNSO Directors?, any other way to
approach the ICANN Board to instruct the community of the procedures to be
followed for request an opportunity to be listened again, and the most
important:  that ICANN instructs to the community what are the procedures
to add a new consitituency.  And this is valid not only for an Individual
Constituency...this is valid for any other constituency that be suggested
to be created.


> It is true that the board may create a new constituency if it wants.  If
> those interested in having the constituency want to wait until that happens,
> that is fine.
This is not about waiting or not to this happens.  This is about that the
ICANN Board might clarify the steps and procedures for the stablishment of
a new constituency, from the recognition of a need of such a constituency,
then resolutions of creating such constituencies, then groups
selforganizes, etc, etc, etc.

>  It is my opinion that it might take a long time or maybe
> never happen unless the board sees some evidence of the viability of the
> organization and that it represents a broad base of individual domain name
> holders.
But the ICANN Board hasn't given yet a new opportunity to expose such
viability of an Indivdual Constituency.

Then tell me Chuck:  If those ones that are in favor of an Individual
Constituency wish to be granted for an slot of time in the ICANN Board
Public Forum meeting in Stockholm, what they have to do to be granted for
such time?, where and to whom should be sent the documents and/or evidence of proof
of such viability for its analize and discussion?  Will the ICANN Board
engage in such analisis and discussion on a document that they hasn't
requested previously?

Of course, if resolutions passed by the GA, resolutions passed by
constituencies and resolutions passed by the Names Council in favor of the
creation of an Individual Domain Names Holders Constituency helps in this
process, then I think such resolutions should be done.

Cheers
Vany

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa



>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:vany@sdnp.org.pa]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:43 AM
> To: [ga]
> Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???
>
>
> Hi Chuck:
>
> When the constiuecnies were created, there wasn't any group formed yet.
> All constituencies were organized after they creation by the ICANN Board,
> not before.  This means that individuals doesn't have to be organized
> before the ICANN Board decides to add an individual constituencie.  What
> IDNO and other organizations and individuals are asking to ICANN Board is
> that recognizes the need of a Constituency that represents the interests
> of the Individual Domain Names Holders.  Once the ICANN Board recognize
> such need and creates a new constituency, then, and only then, the groups
> interested in concrete such constituency by means of a charter begins to
> organize themselves for futher approoval of the ICANN Board of such
> charter.
>
> The steps decribed above was the procedures almost all constituencies
> followed, including the Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency.
>
> If ICANN Board have the intention to create a new Constituency that
> representes the Individual Domain Names Owners, then they should make a
> resolution of such intentions and instruct publicly all the requirements
> and procedures to follow for those groups that wish to organize such new
> constituency.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
> :-)
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > The Bylaws already allow for the creation of a new constituency but the
> > board would have to approve the addition which would result in an
> amendment
> > to the Bylaws as I understand it.  As you said very well below, nothing
> will
> > convince the board and the NC more than proof of a solid, representative
> > organization already in place and ready to go.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:26 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: [ga]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???
> >
> >
> > Mr. Gomes:
> >
> > Well said. "Rhetoric" is what's been happening for years, some
> constructive
> > and some back alley scrapping. The idea that our rushing to a "vote"
> > (although I've noted that I'm in favor of having this little "yeah, nay"
> bit
> > just to see where the land lies) will accomplish anything is naive to the
> > extreme. Too much personality, grinding old axes, and so on, without
> > much show of solidarity. Each blast from Party A at Party B adds more
> > to the image. So far as I've been able to tell, there are, indeed, no
> means
> > established here for having a definitive "vote" on anything, nor even the
> > slightest notion of what would be done with the results of the vote except
> > ship it off to ICANN and watch it headed right for the round file.
> >
> > Other than the Business Constituency and IDNO and the like, after poring
> > over the ICANN pages I've seen no web sites presenting the credentials
> > of any "constituency" or any authoritative listing of what or who the
> > various
> > constituencies are, other than the listings of the Supporting
> Organizations
> > and
> > the original listing out of the Bylaws which lists bodyless names (ccTLD
> > Registries, Commercial and Business entities, ISPs and connectivity
> > providers, Non-commercial domain name holders, Registrars, and.
> > Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests). The
> thing
> > with ICANN is that if you're not on that list, or authoritatively
> identified
> > with some line on that list, you're toast.  I've seen no recognition that
> > since
> > the constituencies are defined in the Bylaws, if one wants to create a new
> > constituency one must amend the Bylaws -- you go in and pore through
> > them to see how that is done, and you direct your efforts towards that
> > rather than burn up more septillions of electrons expounding ideas (some
> > good, some dreadful) and hassling other list members.
> >
> > This "I demand the right to vote" tack, with no thought towards what
> > comes next, is utterly amateurish, and is taken quite properly as a sign
> > that "that bunch has no idea what it's doing and can be ignored."  It is
> > not enough to exclaim that "ICANN has been told to run itself 'bottom
> > up' so that somehow, and magically, 'it must allow an individual domain
> > name holder constituency,' since it does have mechanisms by which
> > people can be heard, if those steps were only utilized. It's all a matter
> > of process, i.e., using the right one.
> >
> > One follows the ICANN mechanisms, not just expound rhetoric at an
> > ICANN meeting and be ignored. One tries to garner support from the
> > other SOs.  One lobbies the Directors, one by one, remembering that
> > ICANN does NOT operate by representative government -- the Board
> > members placed there by particular SOs are not there to represent the
> > SO that did so; they are there to "advance the good of the Corporation"
> > (or words to that effect).
> >
> > The ICANN constituency list has been locked in stone since day one, in
> > its Bylaws, and it will stay that way until organized and concerted effort
> > is
> > made to amend those Bylaws.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> >
> > > I am one who supports the possible value of an individual domain name
> > > holders constituency but as I said publicly in Melbourne, I don't
> believe
> > > that discussing it and passing motions that there should be one will
> > > accomplish much.  That has all happened in the past and look where we
> are.
> > >
> > > If you really want to make this happen, then organize such a
> constituency
> > > and then you will be able to clearly demonstrate with objective data its
> > > viability, its representativeness, etc.  Neither the NC nor the ICANN
> > board
> > > is going to do this for you and it seems highly unlikely that they will
> > > approve a new constituency without evidence beyond simple rhetoric.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@corliss.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 10:56 PM
> > > To: William X. Walsh
> > > Cc: [ga]
> > > Subject: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???
> > >
> > > Hi William
> > >
> > > Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all tone
> > down
> > > personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity for consensus.
> > >
> > > I also note your own personal support of a constituency for individual
> > > domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on this one.  Many
> > others
> > > are also.  Those that have said so specifically seem to me to include:
> > >
> > > In favour:
> > > Joop Ternstra
> > > William X. Walsh
> > > Roeland Meyer
> > > Joe Kelsey
> > > Marc Schneiders
> > > Patrick Corliss
> > > Leah Gallegos
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > Andrew McMeikan
> > > Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
> > > Eric Dierker
> > > Jeff Williams
> > >
> > > Opposed:
> > > nobody
> > >
> > > Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider putting
> > it
> > > to a vote?
> > >
> > > Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Patrick Corliss
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> > > To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> > > Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:36 AM
> > > Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
> > holders'
> > > constituency (IC)
> > >
> > > > Hello Joop,
> > > >
> > > > Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:21:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > > > If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then
> > perhaps
> > > > > the motion is better off without your "support".
> > > >
> > > > I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means, that you are in it
> > > > more for the personal glory than for the concept of getting a real
> > > > individual's constituency created in the DNSO.
> > > >
> > > > If you truly want to see an individual's constituency adopted, with
> > > > as broad support as would be needed to get this controversial issue
> > > > push forward, then you would well do to set your personal issues
> > > > aside, and remove the IDNO from any considerations.
> > > >
> > > > I'd hate to see the IDNO issue become a subject of debate again,
> > > > especially at this very important moment.
> > > >
> > > > But there are enough people who share the concerns with regard to the
> > > > IDNO itself that any effort to make the IDNO even a small focus of
> > > > this movement will meet with solid and loud opposition.
> > > >
> > > > Is it really worth it for this little personal glory, Joop?
> > > >
> > > > I think deep down you are a bigger person than that.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > William X Walsh
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
>
>


--
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