Re: [ga] Re: Channels to create an IC

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 16:51 12/05/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
>My personal view...
>
With due respect, should take no priority over your duties as Chair.

>
>Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency is created, the
>idno will be the first organization in line seeking to represent
>individuals.  If they can't get sufficiently organized to present their own
>petition, and have it accepted by the Board, then why should I, or any of
>you, want them representing us? 

This is unwarranted. We are talking about the principle of  a constituency
for Individual DN owners, voting for whoever they want to represent them. 

The Idno is not "them", it's for all who want to make it work. 

The channels are available to them under
>the Bylaws to put forward their own petition.  Let them do so.  No one is
>stopping them.  Perhaps at some point they will actually create a new
>petition for presentation, although I have seen no effort on their own list
>to do this.  I don't see why the GA should support their very transparent
>ploy.

I think with this you just stepped outside your role as elected Chair of
this Assembly.

>This is not about individuals having a voice, this effort is directed at
>getting idno members seats on the Names Council.   Their website already
>indicates who those NC members will be:  Joop Teernstra, Dinesh Nair, Dennis
>Schaefer.
>
These three people have been elected by the idno members as external
representatives of the idno.  
New elections for an IC will determine who in the end will sit on the NC. I
am not at all sure if I would want tro accept such a nomination. Perhaps
Jeff Williams (not an idno member) ,  Eric Dierker (not an idno member)
and William X Walsh will be elected. Who knows.

>Joop's motion will be voted on this coming week.  He and I will jointly
>agree on appropriate language for the ballot question as we are at odds on
>this issue. 

I didn't know we were "at odds". I trusted you enough to nominate you for
Chair, expecting that motions from GA members, if duly seconded, would be
brought to a proper vote.

Here is the language the mover of the motion proposes to the GA and the
Chair for the members to vote on:


1. The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby resolves to recommend to the ICANN
Board that it act in the interest of the Corporation and establishes the
ground rules for an Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO in this plenary
session in Stockholm. 
Agree/Disagree

(and 

1a.  The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby resolves to recommend to the
Names Council that it recommends to the ICANN Board that it act in the
interest of the Corporation and establishes the ground rules for an
Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO in this plenary session in Stockholm. 
Agree /disagree)

and

2.  The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby resolves to recommend  to the
ICANN Board that it act in the interest of the Corporation and approves in
principle the Application for  an Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO in
this plenary session in Stockholm, if and when such an application is again
presented to the Board. 
Agree /disagree

and  

2a  The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby resolves to recommend to the
Names Council that it recommends to the ICANN Board that it act in the
interest of the Corporation and approves in principle the Application for
an Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO in this plenary session in
Stockholm, if and when such an application is again presented to the Board. 
Agree /disagree



--
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