RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Milton, I never had any problem with "the people". I was not on the
Names Council in 199, but I have attended most meetings, and I
particularly remember that in santiago chile, Joop was the focus of many
go-arounds in the GA. (nii quaynor chaired that meeting).

If and when a set of documents to form the idho, or whatever it evolves
to be called, with aa significant number of persons and organizations
signing off on it (more than 100)

I would endorse it for presentation to the ICANN board.

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Milton
Mueller
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:04 PM
To: philip.sheppard@aim.be; DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org;
pdeblanc@usvi.net
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request


Peter:
The self-organization took place back in Spring 1999. 
An IDNO organization has been around since then, the
powers that be just didn't like the people behind it. 
Can we agree that when _another_ such proposal comes 
before the NC that it will be treated less politically?

>>> "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> 08/07/01 09:19AM >>>
Greetings:
 
Please refer to Article 3, and section 3 (d) of the ICANN bylaws at
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI 
 
The (proposed) new constituency must self-organize, probably produce a
document containing at least a statement of purpose, or mission
statement, and some basic bylaws defining membership.
 
Once the (proposed) new constituency has self-organized, it may petition
the Board for recognition.
 
My question is, has such self-organization, and production of documents
taken place?
 
Peter de Blanc
 
(Please note that I support the idea of some kind of individual domain
name holder's constituency)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Philip
Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:21 AM
To: DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org 
Cc: gcarey@carey.cl; aaus@MPAA.org; cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com;
Paul.Kane@reacto.com; erica.roberts@bigpond.com; kstubbs@dninet.net;
vany@sdnp.org.pa; yjpark@myepark.com; mueller@syracuse.edu;
greg_ruth@yahoo.com; tony.ar.holmes@bt.com; harris@cabase.org.ar;
ck@nrm.se; Richard.Tindal@neulevel.biz; rcochetti@verisign.com;
grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz; mcade@att.com; orobles@nic.mx;
Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr; pdeblanc@usvi.net 
Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request


Danny, 
thank you for your reply to my request for a document summarising the
rationale and level of support for an individual's constituency. I can
understand your temptation in continuing to copy in the entire NC but
would urge you to stop unless those individuals actively ask to be kept
directly informed. A copy to nc-review would seem more appropriate.
 
You cited general references to the CONCEPT in the report of WG review
with which I am familiar. You also cite a proposal on the CONCEPT made
by Karl Auerbach. Did this ever get to a vote? You also cite various
votes to questions of CONCEPT in each case with votes cast numbering
from around 20 to 90 persons.
 
What would be useful is to know if there has been a SUBSTANTIVE proposal
addressing the key issue of representation, and if so what level of
support that proposal received.
 
Philip
 
 


--
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