[nc-intake] Re: [council] Re: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Thank you Ken - I apreciate your drawing our attention to the relevant
by-laws.
Under these by laws it does seem that the authority to establish new DNSO
constituencies lies with the ICANN Board and not with the Names Council.  If
the Names Council is to be effective, we need o focus on our core
responsibilities and not on issues over which we have no authority or
control.
However, having said that, it may be appropriate for the NC  to formally
NOTE that there has been a request to form a constituency for individuals
and that, under the ICANN by-laws this matter is one which can be properly
determined only by the ICANN Board - or words to that general effect.
I would be interested to hear the views of others.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Digitel - Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
To: <nc-intake@dnso.org>; "names council" <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:33 PM
Subject: [council] Re: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC
teleconferences


> please make this response a supporting document in consideration of this
> agenda item request by YJ
> re: Individual constituancy
>
> Fellow members of the council...
>
> below is the exerpt of the section of the by-laws regarding constituancy
> formation:
> "d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
> recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will
>    be posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The
> Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a
>    petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would
> serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event the Board is
>    considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed
explanation
> of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable
>    time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to
> create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments
>    received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a
new
> Constituency for public comment, it will notify the names
>    council and will consider any response to that notification prior to
> taking action. "
>
>
> I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or direction for the
> names council to be involved in the formation process of any constituancy
> but rather a directive that the process be one of self-organization by any
> prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
> handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition is facilitated
by
> interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.
>
> it would seem to me that we would be out-of-bounds here to involve
ourselves
> as a formal body in this process unless directed to by the board.
>
> it would seem more appropriate to me if this self-formation process was
> managed and facilitated by the parties who are seeking constituancy status
> rather than members of other constituancies which we represent on the
> council. this would avoid any future criticism of "micro-managing" or
> "manipulation" of this process.
>
> this is only my personal view  as an individual member of the council of
> this by-law section and i would appreciate any other thoughts on this
agenda
> item as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>