Re: [ga] Business Constituency

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 11/20/01 12:14 PM, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales at vany@sdnp.org.pa
wrote:

> Patrick:
> 
> You are mixing apples with oranges.  There is no relationship
> between internal processes happening inside a constituency with
> the issue if GA has voice or not in the decision making process of
> ICANN.
> 
Vany,

Actually, that cannot possibly be correct in all circumstances. This
internal process of one consituency is specifically intended to
disenfranchise a group of affected stakeholders whom the whole community,
through consensus building procedures, has determined previously to be a
valid part of the process through membership of that Consituency, which is
the reason the community, not its current membership, formed that
consitituency with the Charter under which it currently operates. That
Charter includes representing more views than the select few now enrolled.

It is therefore not only the business of the GA, but also *all*
constituencies within the DNSO, to discuss this issue and for its views to
be given proper consideration and weight *before* a legitimate decision can
be made internally.

Some businesses that are currently eligible, but have been denied for no
good reason up till now, are apparently to be excluded as a matter of
policy, and while the BC so detemines that it is entitled to become more
selective by way of an internal decision, it is certainly a change to a
policy decision that cannot be put into effect without consultation with
that part of the internet community it now seeks to deny participation.

*If* there are other consituencies that can indeed represent those it now
seeks to exclude, then the BC at the very least owes them a courtesy call to
enquire whether they are willing and able to aborb this particular group,
and I would say that they are not.

If for one momemnt, we were to buy into the argument that Constituency
Charter changes are internal procedures (which I do not), then by that
logic, an Individual's Constituency would have self-formed a long time ago
without any need for approval from either the NC or the BoD. Self-formation
works both ways, and cannot be undertaken unilaterally by a consituency,
whatever Philip Shepard says.

Of course we all know this is just another attempt to violate the spirit of
the Bylaws, if not the letter. Dictatorships are fundamentally flawed and
never last forever. This proposed step is the fastest way for the BC to end
up as captain of the DNSO ship without a crew to take them where they want
to go, and everybody else on an alternate root doing the right thing. It's a
shame they feel threatened by the talent surrounding them that can actually
solve the real, rather than imagined problems they face.

Regards,
Joanna 


> Of course freedom of speech exists and anyone can make their opinions
> about what is happening internally in the BC if you want, but you cannot
> force members of the BC to report internal issues not related with
> policy making to the GA or even to the NC, until they arrives to the
> part of the process when they have to make any futher consultations, if
> any has to be done.
> 
> Internal issues, are internal issues, period.
> 
> Best Regards
> Vany
> 
> 
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:23:23 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>> 
>>> The Business Constituency has launched an internal
>>> debate to revise its charter. To give due respect to the
>>> participation of BC members in this debate, the
>>> Constituency will not be replying to discussion on
>>> this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.
>> 
>> Hi Philip
>> 
>> Are you confirming that the General Assembly has no
>> voice in the decision making process of ICANN?
>> 
>> Regards
>> Patrick Corliss
>> 
>> --
>> 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