What it is needed to create new constituencies? (was before Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?)

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

Hi Ken, Roberto, Peter, Joop and all:

I remember some months ago, I recalled ICANN ByLaws where defines perfectly the
order that things happens about the creation of a new constituency.

1.  A group of persons and/organizations make the request to the ICANN Board.
2.  The constituency is created by the ICANN Board
3.  The constituency is self-organized (charter, etc)
4.  All the documents pertained organization of a constituency is sent to the
NC for comments
5.  The constituency begins to operate after final aprooval of the ICANN Board.

Or at least this is what I understand from the ICANN By-Laws.   And note that a
new constituency needs first to be created in order that then people and/or
organizations begins the work of self-organize it.

Then, yes, I am agree that any new constituency doesn't needs even doesn't
require the aprooval of the Names Council, since according to the By-Laws, this
is a power of ICANN Board, and the only role that have the Names Council about
it is give their opinion.

However, I think that right now the issue here is what it is needed for
ICANN Board considers the creation of new constituencies?
This is not about having an association that represents certain sector of the
domain names stakeholders.  However, in my opinion, it is about a group of
individuals and/or organizations (perhaps including that associations that are
working with such certain sector) expose to ICANN Board why it is needed such a
new constituency, with even a proposal of self-organization (not a proposal of
operation since this has to be done after such constituency meets a certain
group of people and/or organizations) and how this new constituency will
contribute to the best interests of ICANN.

And, if such a proposal can go together with the support of DNSO
constituencies, NC and GA...I think it would be better. welcomed, than no
offical support at all.

Best Regards
Vany





Ken Stubbs wrote:

> i agree with roberto here regarding the names council's role in this
> process... as i have stated before:
>
> "You DO NOT need the names council approval to form a new constituancy,
> never have  and as i see it , you never will need the NC approval  (just
> like
> the cctld's forming their own SO)"
>
> i find it quite surprising that an intelligent group of personalities with
> the
> kind of perception  displayed here on a regular basis cannot seem to create
> these "criteria" on their own..then they can take it to the NC if they wish
> for "vetting" (frankly, i dont think that is as important as taking to the
> individual constituancies)
>
> my best guess is that it could most certainly be done in a 4-6 hour
> brain-storming session..
>
> most of the "interested parties"  are logical thinkers and have organized
> creative minds.   and after 2 years+ in the "trenches" my guess is that
> they must have a pretty good idea where the pitfalls are and why the
> previous proposal
> failed in the past..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>
> To: <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?
>
> > Joop,
> >
> > >
> > >Yes, the can represent, provided that they are elected by a real
> > >membership.
> > >But one has to start bottom-up and the large numbers can appear only
> after
> > >recognition of the constituency in principle.
> > >It is this dimension of reality that I am concerned with.
> >
> > I think we agree in principle on the need for an individual constituency
> > (you may remember that I was one of the early supporters of this
> > constituency, when it was not "fashionable" yet).
> > The disagreement is only on the fact that I don't see the NC recognition
> as
> > a prerequisite *before* starting to work at a new charter and recruitment
> of
> > supporters.
> > IMHO, we should continue the discussion that started with some interesting
> > postings about "Registrants", and that unfortunately died out. There is
> > nothing better to support our request to NC (and later to ICANN) than a
> > sound proposal, even in a draft status.
> >
> > >
> > >Please try to remember that you are elected yourself, ---by how many
> > >votes?--, to represent the GA on the Task Force.  You must try to
> represent
> > >the will of the GA and help the NC produce that recognition in principle.
> >
> > And I believe that this is what I am doing, as a GA representative (if you
> > don't think this is true, please tell me why).
> > But this will not prevent me (as an individual) to warn against the belief
> > that recognition by the NC of the principle of an Individual/Registrant
> > constituency will solve all the problems.
> >
> > The Constituency will not be given to us on a silver plate without hard
> work
> > from our part. In every negotiation failure to present continuously new
> > elements will inevitably bring to a stall.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
> > --
> > 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

--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa



--
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