Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

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

Although many GA denizens seem not to want to recognize this,
the ICANN charter precludes the GA from having any
approval/disapproval role in anything. That is why ICANN
does not have representative government -- even Directors
elected by this or that entity within ICANN are specifically
precluded from following the wishes of their "constituents,"
unless those wishes happen to coincide with "the good of
the corporation" that the Directors are bound to act for.

It is a fundamental flaw in the system -- deliberately put
in (as was the method of avoiding the APA, the setting
of Director terms, and the fact of not having "members"),
all methods that gave to the Board its autocratic authority
to do what it pleases, without regard to anyone else.  It
is the most cynical and self-serving quasi-legal document
that I have ever seen, and the notion that it was intended
to serve the "public good" is a farce, and has been since
day one.

Bill Lovell

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Bret,
>
> Resources allocated for the benefit of the GA is a different issue than the
> GA making decisions as to how resources contributed by others are used.
> Input from the GA should be encouraged in the latter situation, but I'm not
> sure that the GA should be given approval/disapproval rights.
>
> I also think that an individuals constituency might resolve a lot of the
> issues here.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:baf@fausett.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:23 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Patrick Corliss'; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
> Worl d
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the services,
> > but the GA wants to call the shots?
>
> The GA is _supposed to be_ an umbrella organization encompassing all the
> constituencies, so the idea that resources could be allocated to it without
> charging those who participate in it a separate fee isn't that hard to
> accept. I hope the current problem of this being a de facto place for
> unaffiliated DNSO participants will be cured when an individual domain name
> owners constituency is finally chartered and operational.
>
>       -- Bret
> --
> 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

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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