Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

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

Hi Roberto:

I think the following document will clarify a lot what was the process of
creating, then organizing, then recognizing a constituency.

http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html
http://www.isoc.org/internet/issues/dns/990409.shtml

keep reading.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Vany,
>
> >
> >The Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency (and for sure other
> >ones) history is, perhaps, very different to the items you mentioned:
> >
> >1.  NCDNHC was created by ICANN
> >2.  Those organizations that requested the creation of NCDNHC made a call
> >to other organizations to join the NCDNHC (no mission statement at that
> >time, just the idea that the Non-Commercial sector will be represented also
> >in ICANN)
> >3.  Organizations began to join
> >4.  Such organizations worked together to create a charter where, and just
> >then, we began to define a mission statement and objectives
> >5.  Constituency was finally aprooved.
> >
> >In fact Peter, there were a constituency (I don't remember which one) that
> >was created and then two different groups was self-organizing it, and both
> >created a charter with mission statement, etc.   And then ICANN selected
> >the group with the best charter, mission statement, etc, for aprooval as a
> >constituency.
>
> For the record, that was exactly the NonCommercial Constituency (I'm
> surprised you could forget), and it exactly proves Peter's point, which is
> also mine.

> In Berlin 6 of the "initial" 7 Constituencies came with a single proposal,
> while there were two conflicting ones for NonCom. I tried an impossible
> mediation between Milton Muller and David Maher, without success. As a
> consequence, the Board deferred the creation of the NonCom to a later date.
>
Riht.  Now I remember two proposals.  However, always keep in mind that
NCDNHC was already created by the ICANN By-Laws and just then, proposals
were submited.

1.  Proposal submited by ISOC and other 34 organizations (Red de
Desarrollo Sostenible de Panama aka SDNP/Panama, who I represent in the
actual NCDNHC was involved with this iniciative)

2.  The other proposal now I remember is not the one submited by Milton.
It was the one submited by Michael Sondow.

3.  I checked, and I see now the third proposal, made by Milton (I wasn't
aware of it)


But, there were still another constituency that had three proposals...It
was the Intelectual Property Constituency.

> This is exactly the point: we need a proposal for Individuals that can be
> solid enough to be inclusive of the population we address, otherwise any
> other group could work on an alternative proposal that will have similar
> credibility, and we are back to square one.

But the willingness to create an Individual/Registrant Constituency has to
exists.

In the By-Laws of ICANN 7 constituencies was created without
proposals...Once they was created, proposals were submited
and later ICANN recognized the more appropiate charters for every constityency.

Once created this new constituency, such constituency shall self-organize
(make charter, how they will elect their NC members, etc). In this stage
of the process it can be one, two, three, etc, groups that wants to
self-organize such constituency.   Such groups would submit their
proposals of charter and then ICANN will recognize the charter that is more appropiate
for the new constituency. (as you may realize, Milton Mueller is now part
of the NCDNHC as delegate of Syracuse University, under the charter that
was aprooved under a different iniciative.


What we can do as DNSO is expose to ICANN the need of an
Individual Registrant Constituency (or whatever name is more accurate),
which sector of the Domain Names Holders will represent and how this will
serve in the interests of ICANN.   This should be enough for deciding to
create it.  If the ICANN wants more than this, then the best thing is that
they post all the requisites they require to form a new constituency.

Or maybe what they wanted to mean in Stockholm meeting is that, they want
to see from DNSO is a paper suggesting new procedures to create,
self-organize and recognize new constituencies?


> >The bottom line here is that ICANN Board has to create a constituency
> >before doing anything else.   Please, note that "create" a constituency is
> >not the same as "aprooval" of a constituency.
>
> Please have a second look at the minutes from the Berlin meeting
> (http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-27may99.htm). The Board has *deferred
> consideration* of the proposal for an Individual Constituency until the
> initial Constituency were operational (condition fulfilled) and until it was
> not going to be clarified what relationship would there be between the
> AtLarge and the Individual Constituency.
> Hence, the need to work in coordination with Carl Bildt's committee to make
> sure that there's no overlap.
Ooohh!!! this is another issue (I wasn't in Berlin 1999 anyway).  Is not
clear yet the relationship between At-Large and Individual Constituency?
I am surprised that ICANN is not clear about this relationship yet.


> >Also, ICANN Board never requested from any constituency a financial
> >strcuture, and is not an obligation to have one.   Of course that if after
> >aprooval of the constituency, it may happen that expenses are made and that
> >such constituency may contribute or not, this is another issue....but such
> >issues are not required for the ICANN By-Laws to have a new constituency.
> >  Or at least the ICANN By-Laws doesn't specify it.
>
>
> Again, the answer is in the Berlin meeting, see
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/exhibita.htm. *All* proposals address the
> funding, some a mission statement and all a statement of purpose.
> I would play it safe, and make sure that we produce all these elements in
> the proposal for a new constituency.
NCDNHC doesn't address funding issue because by Charter, our membership is
free (and with free membership we were aprooved by ICANN).

Best Regards
Vany


-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
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