Re: [wg-c] constituency representation

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	That's one interpretation of the by-laws, but I don't think it's the best
one.  The by-laws do state that DNSO WGs "shall include at least one
representative nominated by each recognized constituency."  This provision,
though, plainly contemplates WGs all of whose members are actually named by
the NC, and the point is to ensure that the NC doesn't stack such a WG
against any constituency.  It wouldn't make sense to try to apply that rule
to a body like this one, which is open to anybody who wishes to
participate.  It seems to me that the best interpretation of the by-laws
requirement is that *if* a recognized constituency "nominate[s]" a
representative to a WG, then at least one such person must be included.  On
that understanding, we don't have a problem.

Jon


Jon Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com


At 09:31 PM 7/25/99 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>A friend brought this to my attention:
>
>According to VI-B, Section 2 (b) of the ICANN bylaws, there
>*must* be at
>least one representative in the [working] group from each of the
>recognized
>constituencies.  NSI could essentially veto the work by simply
>not attending.
>
>Is this true? If so, what can we do about it?
>
>
>
>
>--
>m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
>syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
>
>
>
>