[ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] gtld Statement on NC Election (Please Post)

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

Jeff and all assembly members or other stakeholders,

  Looks and smells allot like another "Moving of the Goal Posts"
political move.  Basically it stinks so bad this moves smell would
knock a buzzard off a @%$# wagon!  Sheesh!

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> All,
>
> The gTLD Constituency is concerned by the recent suggestion that the NC
> Rules of Procedure should be amended to (a) extend the six-month period that
> each NC Chair is in office, and (b) allow the Chair in office to continue to
> serve until a successor is appointed -- apparently only to be removed by a
> two-thirds vote of the Council.  This motion mandates that more
> comprehensive consideration be given to its potentially long-ranging impact
> as well as the new policy's inconsistency with previous discussions by the
> Names Council on this issue.  Therefore, the Names Council should not
> proceed at this time on this expeditious timeframe.
> The motion is being presented at the very moment that an election should be
> held for a new NC Chair under the current rules.  The current election
> should and must proceed, regardless of the action the NC decides to take in
> connection with the motion.  Changes to the election rules can be
> contemplated at some other time (and, in any event, with enough time for
> stakeholders to provide comments after more complete consideration.   Even
> "Legislatures" do not generally create term limit (or term extension)
> initiatives that have retroactive effect.
> As just one illustration of the importance of non-retroactivity (albeit, not
> related to term limits), the United States Constitution, a document only
> amended 27 times in the last 215 years, was amended in the 1990s to state
> the following:
> No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
> Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives
> shall have intervened.
>
> In addition, while the motion's author feels that a six month term is too
> short and that she "is not aware of any elected position at least in the
> U.S. which carries such a short term," we believe the NC's role as
> facilitator of consensus-building may, in fact, be best served by having a
> short-term NC Chair from rotating constituencies.  This allows different
> constituencies to lead the process.  This was acknowledged during the last
> Names Council call by those members that were in place when the NC
> originally passed its procedural rule allowing for only one six month term
> and one six month renewal.
>
> The issue of ICANN's restructuring is very much on the minds of the ICANN
> board, staff and the Internet community as a whole.  The primary role of the
> Names Council is to facilitate the consensus-generating process within the
> DNSO.  However, it has been criticized by many as being more of a
> representative legislature, empowered to make rules, than a consensus
> facilitator.  Although we believe that the Names Council is doing the best
> job that it can given the diversity of its membership, we believe that
> passing this motion would lend further support for the criticisms the DNSO
> has received in the past.  At a time when some are calling into question
> procedural and substantive actions by the NC, and even suggesting that the
> NC should not be part of a restructured ICANN, we fear that taking such an
> action, with no notice to or discussion by the GA and larger ICANN
> community, would play right into the hands of NC critics and hasten the
> demise of the NC.
>
> This is in not a comment on the current chair. We recognize that the current
> chair has worked very hard to organize and focus the work of the NC.
> However, at a time when many in the Internet community question the
> credibility of the DNSO, no action should be taken by the DNSO which could
> signal to the rest of the world that the DNSO is not interested in consensus
> and diversity.
>
> We urge the NC to reject the motion and hold an immediate election for its
> chair in accordance with the Rules of Procedure that are currently in
> effect.  If it turns out that this motion is desirable by the Internet
> community, the motion can be voted on at some point in the future (after
> enough time for feedback from the ICANN community) and apply to subsequent
> elections.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz
>
> ---------
> Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are requested to not cross-post messages.

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