Re: [ga] Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaws Violations

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

It appears that that the DNSO GA Chair Danny Younger is making serious
allegations and taking action on his own without the full support of the
constituency he represents. 

I am not against going after those who appear to not follow the rules or
who appear to operate illegally. I am a member of the DNSO GA and I do
not believe that it is correct for the DNSO GA Chair to take this kind
of action without the full support of the DNSO GA Constituency. 

Younger taking action in formally charging the Business Constituency
with the allegations set forth in his email message without the support
of the DNSO GA Constituency was not an appropriate way to alert
interested parties and DNSO participants of his personal concerns and
beliefs. 

Younger took significant action on behalf of the DNSO GA, in his
capacity as DNSO GA Chairman, without notice to the DNSO GA Constituency
and without DNSO GA Constituency support concerning his formal action
and allegations against the Business Constituency. 

Younger did give the appearance that he represented the DNSO GA in
presenting his position to ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn. At the very least,
Younger was not clear that he was not representing the DNSO GA nor did
his message indicate that the he was flying solo. 

In my opinion, Younger being Chair has a greater responsibility at
promoting the integrity of ICANN/DNSO processes than does a member. My
being a member of the DNSO GA, Younger should not have attacked the
Business Constituency, like he did, without the support of the
constituency he represents. It appeared to me that Younger used his
position as Chair to legitimize his allegations against the Business
Constituency. Younger used language that included "our" and he directed
the communication to the DNSO GA and ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn.  The Chair
should not take formal action on his own without first notifying his
constituency in an effort to obtain consensus and information regarding
his allegations and plans to take such action. 

The DNSO GA itself appears in violation with Younger's formal action.
Most of our efforts here are related to seeing a correct process and
that process is followed. In this case, Younger did not follow the very
process he represents in being Chair of the DNSO GA. 

I cannot agree with Younger's actions in this case. In my opinion,
Younger's actions in this case jeopardize the development of the DNSO
process and his actions damage the credibility of the DNSO and ICANN.
Younger's actions in this case were not a productive approach to the
problem Younger alleges in his formal capacity as the DNSO GA Chair. 

Younger's actions in this case appear to show him to be all over the
board and unable to focus on the agenda of the DNSO GA. I believe that
Younger appears to be a loose cannon and that if he chooses to not focus
on the DNSO GA agenda or respect his position, then Younger should
consider resigning as the DNSO GA Chairman. 

Another problem that the DNSO GA faces is that its active participants
are very few in numbers. The DNSO GA appears incapable of any valid
consensus process. The few active participants appear to have captured
the DNSO GA and I believe that this has contributed to the GA's
disorganization and lack of growth. The DNSO GA has its own legitimacy
issues and Younger would do better focusing on those issues other than
setting fires.  The DNSO GA Chair should focus on the problems within
the constituency he represents first. 

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman
Phone: (202) 801-0158
E-mail:  dconant@dnsga.org

--

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> 
> I am rather leery of existing constituencies seeking to impose new criteria
> on new constituencies especially when our current constituencies don't honor
> their own sets of rules.
> 
> Our constituencies are expected to act in accordance with the proposals
> (charters) received by the Corporation (see ICANN Resolutions 27 May, 1999),
> as well as in accordance with the ByLaws.  Yet the Business Constituency is
> in violation of both its own charter and the ICANN ByLaws concurrently.
> 
> The charter of the Business Constituency states:
> 
> "(ii)  In order to assure sectoral balance consistent with the Business
> Constituency's mission and purpose described under I, at most one Names
> Concil representative may belong to or represent an identifiable business
> sector."
> 
> At this time, two current Names Council representatives, Marilyn Cade and
> Grant Forsythe, both represent the Telcom sector.   Grant Forsyth is
> identified as Manager, Industry & Regulatory Affairs
> CLEAR Communications Ltd.  Their website, clear.co.nz, identifies the company
> as follows:
> 
> CLEAR's focus on business, its innovation, and its state-of-the-art fibre
> optic digital network set it apart as one of New Zealand's leading
> communications companies. Its attitude has always distinguished it from the
> competition.  It began in 1991 when CLEAR first set new standards for
> telecommunications in New Zealand. Today it's stronger that ever.   CLEAR is
> wholly-owned by BT. A world leader in telecommunications, BT gives CLEAR
> access to the Concert global network as well as to formidable research and
> development resources.
> 
> Marilyn Cade is well known as a lobbyist for AT&T, also a telecommunications
> firm.  As such, we have two names Council representatives who both belong to
> the same identifiable business sector, a Charter violation.
> 
> It is also to be noted that our ByLaws state:
> 
> "The DNSO shall consist of (i) a Names Council ("NC"), consisting of
> representatives of constituencies as described in Section 3 of this Article
> VI-B ("Constituencies") elected by those Constituencies."
> 
> The Business Constituency never held an election in which Marilyn Cade
> emerged the winner.    She is an appointee filling the seat vacated by
> Theresa Swinehart; therefore we have a ByLaws violation.
> 
> The Business constituency Charter further states:
> 
> III. Procedure for substantive decision-making. Subsidiary and support bodies
> --
> 1. For each policy work item arising from the need to provide support to the
> business constituency representatives on the Names Council, the secretariat
> shall call for volunteers to sit on a research committee whose mandate shall
> be tied to the work item in question. This invitation for volunteers shall be
> accompanied by a set of specific criteria to ensure that members of research
> committees have a knowledge of, and experience with, issues relevant to the
> work of the DNSO that is appropriate for the purpose for which the research
> committee is created. The secretariat shall publish the names of volunteers
> who are finally appointed, together with their credentials. The secretariat
> shall circulate any recommendations produced by such research committees
> among the members of the Business Constituency for consultation. This process
> shall be repeated until consensus has been achieved, always within the time
> frame of DNSO decisions, which may require a quick decision..
> 
> This well-conceived process has never been followed by the Business
> Constituency; no such research committee recommendations or other such
> details have ever been published (because they don't exist).  At best, an NC
> member will draft a statement, and if there are no comments received within
> 10 days (and there never are), the draft is forwarded as the position of the
> BC.
> 
> Their Charter further states:
> 
> "The secretariat shall use their best efforts to give small and medium-sized
> enterprises an adequate voice in all Business Constituency work processes.
> These efforts may include, but not be limited to, the organization of
> democratic elections for representatives of organizations of small and medium
> sized businesses (SMEs) to sit on an SME Consultative Committee whose advice
> shall be solicited on substantive policy work items."
> 
> This has never happened.  Even though I and Jefsey are both ostensibly
> members of this constituency, our advice (as SMEs) has never been solicited.
> Furthermore, neither of our company names is cited on the current Business
> Constituency membership roster.
> 
> Our Bylaws require each ICANN subordinate entity to "operate to the maximum
> extent feasible in an open and transparent manner".  The BC has no publicly
> archived mailing list.  How then can they maintain that they are operating in
> an open manner to the maximum extent feasible?
> 
> At this time the BC is no more than a cartel representing primarily Telcoms
> and intellectual property interests which seem to have no difficulty being in
> violation of their own rules while seeking to impose additional restrictions
> on others.  There is no hesitancy on the part of the BC to deny individuals a
> voice in the ICANN process.  The current BC position paper on the At-Large
> (drafted by Marilyn Cade) states:
> 
> "For now, we believe there should be five regionally elected At-Large
> representatives on the ICANN Board - one per region."
> http://www.bizconst.org/positions/BCatlargepositionv4.doc
> 
> Instead of the nine At-Large Directors that we were promised (to represent
> the rights of individuals on the ICANN Board), this Constituency seeks to
> have it permanently reduced to five.
> 
> As long as they intend to deny individuals their right to participate in the
> ICANN process, I feel no personal remorse in challenging their fitness as a
> Constituency.  While they are in violation of their Charter and the ByLaws,
> their status as a constituency should be suspended by the ICANN Board.
> 
> --
> 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