RE: [ga] The "Precondition" Argument for an Individuals Constituency

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

The reason the ICANN BoD needs to approve is in the bylaws. The NC gets to
nominate a BoD seat and the BoD gets to determine who gets to sit on the NC.
The NC is purely constituted of ONLY recognized constituencies. I guess they
mean that the rest of us can bugger ourselves. Please note the closed-loop
nature of the authority structure. The BoD gets to control the composition
of the NC. The DNSO/NC does not have enough seats to counter this. IIRC, the
other SOs do not have this feed-back loop.

This whole constituency thing is a FUBAR'd SNAFU.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
|> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:51 AM
|> To: Patrick Corliss
|> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; [ga]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] The "Precondition" Argument for an Individuals
|> Constituency
|> 
|> 
|> Patrick, Chuck and all assembly members,
|> 
|>   I fail to see why any constituency need to be approved by the ICANN
|> BoD at all.  Why?  A constituency is a constituency, whether or
|> not the ICANN BOD approves of it or not.  We have seen already
|> too many times now that the ICANN BOD uses the formation
|> of any constituency as a tool for it's own BOD member purposes.
|> When I wonder are all of you going to really learn that lesson?
|> 
|> Patrick Corliss wrote:
|> 
|> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:05:28 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:
|> > >As I have communicated before, in person in GA meetings and on
|> > > this list, I believe that a new constituency should 
|> organize itself and
|> > > demonstrate strong representativeness of the community 
|> involved and
|> > > then submit its proposal for recognition.  Just because 
|> the idea of an
|> > > individuals constituency makes sense to many of us, that 
|> is not enough
|> > > to approve it.
|> >
|> > > If I was a board member I would want to see evidence of 
|> an organization
|> > > that is functioning or at least ready to function and 
|> one that can show that
|> > > it represents a reasonable sample of the population it 
|> claims to represent.
|> > In
|> > > my opinion that has never happened.
|> >
|> > Hi Chuck
|> >
|> > In his reply to your post, David Farrar made some 
|> compelling observations.
|> > His remarks have led others to comment in a way that may 
|> get away from your
|> > point.
|> >
|> > What you are saying very clearly, and I agree, is that any 
|> new constituency
|> > should organise itself first to be reasonably acceptable 
|> to the ICANN Board.
|> >
|> > Please don't misunderstand, everybody AGREES with you on 
|> that and, except for
|> > an odd fringe lunatic somewhere, they always have.  So 
|> what's the problem?
|> >
|> > (1)    It's a very difficult task in the special case of 
|> individuals.
|> > However, many people have put serious effort into the 
|> attempt.  Others, like
|> > myself, have either tried to assist or would be prepared 
|> to assist if the game
|> > was fair.
|> >
|> > (2)    But there's the rub.  The game's not fair.  Asking 
|> people to set up a
|> > constituency for individuals when ICANN has no intention 
|> of allowing
|> > participative democracy is a dream.  Those with any sense 
|> see that quite well.
|> >
|> > So the fact that you are going along with what I am 
|> calling the "precondition"
|> > argument indicates that you are either (a) being fooled by 
|> the FUD or (b) lack
|> > personal integrity.
|> >
|> > I have already said that, in my opinion, (b) does not apply.
|> >
|> > Eric Dierker made that implication but I think he was just 
|> being careless as
|> > usual.  Ross Wm. Rader can be discounted to some extent 
|> because he is a rival
|> > registrar (as pointed out by Patrick Greenwell).  
|> Definitely we should all
|> > avoid such comments in relation to issues which are 
|> unrelated to the accused
|> > person's core interest.
|> >
|> > In other words, I would accept that you or Ross may be 
|> perceived to have a
|> > conflict of interest in relation to matter directly 
|> relating to your
|> > employer's business activities.  I would not accept that you should
|> > necessarily be so labeled in relation to more general issues like
|> > "contituencies" or "consensus".
|> >
|> > Anyway, back to the point.  Could I please advise you to 
|> drop what I am
|> > calling the "precondition" argument.  Should you find this 
|> too difficult, you
|> > should move on to the next step and assist in building a 
|> foundation acceptable
|> > to ICANN.
|> >
|> > Otherwise such precondition arguments are seen as mere 
|> hurdles being placed in
|> > the way by those who are determined not to implement the 
|> requested structure.
|> >
|> > Such a view leads to these nasty "integrity" questions !!
|> >
|> > Best 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
|> 
|> Regards,
|> 
|> --
|> Jeffrey A. Williams
|> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
|> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
|> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
|> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
|> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
|> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> 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