Re: [ga] Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:05:46 +0200, "BC secretariat"
<secretariat@bizconst.org> wrote:

>Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council
> 
>Further to the communication from J. Morfin addressed to 
>the Names Council, the Business Constituency and copied 
>widely, we would like to let the Council and others know 
>that the issue will be referred to the membership of the 
>Business Constituency. We regret taking the time of the 
>Council over this.

For the first time ever I am cc'ing a GA post to the NC Chair and the
ICANN President because I believe there is a vital issue of public
policy involved here and I think it would be worthwhile to receive a
considered opinion on this.

First can I make clear I do not wish to address the specific complaint
raised regarding the Business Constituency.  

The question of importance though is what role does ICANN and/or the
Names Council have with regard to complaints about operation of
constituencies.

I can not accept that all issues about an operation of a constituency
are internal to that constituency.  If that is the case does that mean
when we finally get an individuals registrants constituency that if
say I was to be elected President, and Jon Weinberg as Secretary and
Kent Crispin as the Treasurer we could do absolutely whatever we
wanted with the constituency?  

Could we decline membership applications of people we don't like?
Could we ignore election rules?  Could we change the charter without a
vote merely by amending the website?  Can a constituency change its
basic charter without recourse to anyone external to the constituency?

I think most people would agree that there does have to be some
recourse against a constituency which goes "rogue" (not implying any
have to date necessarily).  

So there seem to be three issues which should be clarified.  The first
is to whom should complaints be legitimately directed?  Is it the
Names Council?  Is it the ICANN General Counsel?  Is it the ICANN
Board which recognises constituencies in the first place so hence has
implicit power to un-recognise them.  

The second is whether we specify what sort of issues are appropriate
to take to this higher authority.  One doesn't want every minor
dispute over how a vote was conducted relitigated like it is the US
Supreme Court.  But serious accusations of charter breaches are a
different matter.  Where do we draw the line?

The third issue is what remedies if any exist?  Is the only remedy the
nuclear option of threatened non recognition of a constituency?  Can a
constituency be instructed to do a particular action?

I would welcome consideration and thoughts on the matters raised here.

Ta

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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