[ga] stuff

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> Bill:
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > With all respect, ICANN has no obligation to do anything of the
kind.
>
> > According to http://www.glocom.ac.jp/users/ajp/ncmem.html, the
> > NCDNHC has 63 members.
> false.  We have more members.  But you just went to the end of the
webpage
> without read the whole.  We have 63 Large members and 102 Small
members.

Vany:

Well, whatever!! :-)

> > That, plus being proposed in the initial
> > ICANN Bylaws, sufficed to get the NCDNHC set up as a functioning
> > entity.
> Do you  mean that ICANN Board will not consider never even the idea to
add
> a new constituency, just because it is not included in the By-Laws?
>
> > Not alone, of course -- certain ones of those 63 put together
> > a charter, and applied.
> But because ICANN indicated us the procedures to follow.
>
> > Since there is no Individual Domain Name
> > Holder Constituency even mentioned in those Bylaws, those who wish
> > there to be one have a much rougher row to hoe.  A group that has
> > to be spoon fed is not likely to be very welcome in the ICANN halls.

> Then...which way they have to follow?  Does ICANN Board will give the
> opportunity to the supporters of a new constituency the chance to
apply?
> If yes, how can they apply?

Opportunities are not given, but taken. The only "opportunity" needed is

that the Bylaws say "initial" with respect to the Constituencies. There
will
be no "chance to apply" EVER until there is a showing that there is a
valid
group of people who could actually CONSTITUTE a constituency, and
have the wherewithal to write a charter and all the rest. I suspect with
that
done, and with support from both existing SOs and existing
Constituencies,
something in the nature of a "Resolution" (by whatever name) would be
most
likely, but I'll have to go back to the Bylaws to see.  The references
to the
California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law that I gave earlier
specify what it is that ICANN indeed MUST do, and if they declined to
do so, with a well documented and well supported "call for action" in
front
of them, well, the ICANN feet get put to the fire.

> > Besides what I've mentioned earlier, this ga bunch might then wish
to
> > create an IDNHC Charter Working Group (since that seems to be
> > the term commonly in use, I use it now instead of "committee"). The
> > product should then be an attachment to a request that an IDNHC
> > be authorized. One cannot pretend to seek "bottom up" operation
> > while at the same time looking for direction from the top down.
> Will ICANN accept this way to proceed?

Why should we think they would not?  Yes, I know, I know.  They have
never listened, etc., etc. That is possibly (and forgive me, all you
folks
who have been to these meetings; I haven't been there, so I don't know)
because no one set up a Resolution beforehand, or no one showed up
with the "proof of the pudding," and so on. (I've some videos to look
at,
and will possibly comment after I've seen them. I'm searching my way
through this whole bit just like you, but having been an attorney for
... years
(hahaha!) I've picked up quite a bit on how these things work, and might

be able to suggest something, who knows?)

> First a new constituency have to
> resolved to be created before a charter be drafted for futher
aprooval, as
> historically happened with the actual seven constituencies.

Not so.  In the first round; (a) the existing ICANN folks had
anticipated some
constituencies and listed them in the Bylaws; (b) since those
constituencies were

already approved, certain groups got together and wrote charters; and
(c) some
obviously got approved; possibly some others did not, I don't know.  But
I do
know this: the criteria for approving an applicant to serve in an
existing
consituency
role will at least be met, and likely the bar will be higher, for the
approval of
a new
constituency in the first place. After looking at the NCDNHC charter,
indeed, I
conclude that a draft of such an IDNHC charter would be an excellent
vehicle by
which not only to qualify as such a constituency (if there were one) but
also to
show
the need for the constituency in the first place.  This effort would
certainly
beat
continuing to sit on the dime and chomp our gums. If you can't find the
law, you
invent it -- Standard Operating Procedure. If the Bylaws contemplate
other
constituencies being added (as they obviously do) but yet no mechanisms
are
set out so to do, then the mechanisms have to be invented. What's an SO
for?

>  And such
> charter has to be made by the group or groups that wish to organize
such
> constituency, then charters are submited to ICANN, then ICANN aprooves
the
> charter of the group they find more suitable.  I didn't invented this
> procedure, this was setted-up by ICANN for the seven constituencies.
The
> clue is: which procedures has to follow to add a new consitutency?

Like I said above. (But I may have a better answer after I've had a
chance to
go through the Bylaws again.)

Cheers,

Bill




--
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