Re: [ga] The "Precondition" Argument for an Individuals Constitue ncy

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roeland and all assembly members,

  Exactly!  Which was my implied point.  Well done Roeland.

  This outlines the difference between an "ICANN COnstituency"
and a "Stakeholders Constituency".  They are not necessarily,
the same thing.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> 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
> |>

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