RE: [ga] More BC Shenanigans

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chuck,
The point in the BC rules is not that they participate or not into another 
constituency. It is that they do not belong to a business area outside of 
the BC constituency scope. That ATT is a member or not of the ISP 
constituency has no impact. What is important to know is if a Telco is or 
not an ISP or a Registrar. Marilyn explains that she is on the e-business 
side. And there are documents showing that ATT does not sell Domain Names 
but has a deal with NSI.

There is a BC Membership committee anyway. I do not know if they decided or 
where asked about Marilyn and Grant.

Jefsey

On 13:13 03/09/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>I don't know if I am missing something here but the ICANN Bylaws state the
>following in Article VI-B:
>
>"Section 3. THE CONSTITUENCIES
>
>(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
>criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be
>excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
>participation in another Constituency, .. "
>
>How is the following possible within the Bylaws requirements?  "No ISP,
>Registrar, gTLD can be a Member of the BC."
>
>Chuck
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
>should be sent to webmaster@icann.org.
>
>
>Page Updated 08-October-00
>(c) 1998-2000  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers All
>rights reserved.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
>Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 3:10 PM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [ga] More BC Shenanigans
>
>
>On 18:35 02/09/01, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
> >The newly posted draft of the revised Business Constituency Charter
> >http://www.bizconst.org/bccharter.htm conveniently eliminates the sectoral
> >diversity requirement for NC reps, thereby assuring the Telcom sector
> >continued domination in the Names Council.
>
>Dear Danny,
>I suppose you missed the following :-)
>
><quote>
>It is therefore crucial that the Business Constituency remain independent
>from other constituencies whose primary role is to formulate views from the
>exclusive perspective of such service providers, as well as from other
>groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users.
></quote>
>
>No ISP, Registrar, gTLD can be a Member of the BC. Marilyn Cade and Grant
>Forsyth companies are not in such businesses as to provide access to the
>Internet, to sell or provide domain name resgitration service.
>
>
> >I guess that if they couldn't manage to get Marilyn Cade elected under the
> >terms of their current Charter, it became necessary to revise their Charter
> >accordingly. One has to wonder who drafted this new gerrymandered version?
>
>Much like the previous charter. MCI is no more in telecom/internet business
>than ATT. So Mailyn has every reason to replace Theresa.
>Anyway, Danny, Members have voted that proposition, haven't we? Oh, we have
>not, hmmmm...
>
> >We still haven't had an answer to the question of whether Marilyn is
>legally
> >entitled to vote in this upcoming DNSO Board election.  Somehow, that
>doesn't
> >surprise me...
>
>I promized my wife to go out and have some Champaign the day I vote at the
>BC. Thx to them I am saving my money :-)
>
>Jefsey
>
>--
>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