Re: [wg-d] Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised Agenda

[Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

Let's please discuss this.

To begin with, I protest my listing as a member or possible member of
any existing constituency.  As I explained in a post
to this list, I do not believe such a characterization to be accurate. 
I don't happen to see why this should matter, since it seems undisputed
(I thought) that one did not need to be in a DNSO constitutency to be in
the GA or in a WG.  Indeed, as far as I can tell, the reasons I can
imagine for allocating people on the WG-D membership list to
contituencies they don't (and/or cannot) belong to is (a) an excess of
Cartesian order or (b) a desire to obscure the self-evident fact that
people with a serious interest in Internet policy, who are active
participants in these debates nonetheless may not qualify for any DNSO
constituency and are thus less represented than others.  

Please remove the indication NCC next to my name as soon as possible. 
The suggestion the information was drawn from data provided by the
members implicates me in what I consider to be a false statement, making
this a matter of great personal importance to me.  If that makes me a
"dissident" in your eyes, I am prepared to be flattered.

Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
> 
[....]

> Bret, some legal advice is necessary for that.
> ICANN Bylaws (ARTICLE VI-B, Section 2) states:
>       (e) The NC shall forward to the Board, from among those
>           persons nominated by the GA, its selection(s) for the
>           Director(s) to fill any open Board position(s) reserved
>           for the DNSO.... etc
> I learned that we need to have legal-legal-legal explanations
> to "nomination by GA".
> My non-lawyer reading is: anybody from GA can nominate anybody,
> and no supporters needed. I may not like it, but the text is here.
> 

There is ambiguity here, but on first reading (and I confess I am
reading it here divorced from the context, which could matter), it would
not seem inconsistent with the GA adopting rules of procedure for the
making of nominations.   E.g. a nomination culd require N seconds.  

The move to suggest that the GA only nominate the same number of people
as there are posts is a little slick.  On the other hand, in my law
school, we are supposed to 'nominate' dean candidates to the president
of the University, who then selects among them.   Since time immemorial,
we have always 'nominated' one person each time.....

[...]

> And I am very concerned by some people not willing to be in any
> constituency but remaining in the GA, and requesting votes for GA.

Please note that in my case it is not a matter of "willingness".  I
don't belive I am *eligible*.  As I explained on another list, I am not
my university's or my law school's representative.  The administration
is.  Thus, I can't claim to be the designated person for the domain
names used by those bodies.   Hence, a well-managed NCC would have to
reject me, and I cannot in good conscience claim a right of admission.

I could, in theory, go to the Provost or the Dean and ask to be named. 
They might do it.  But then I would have to represent the
**university's** corporate interests which I suspect would diverge from
my own.
> 
> Could we address here this role of GA being "political dissedents" ?
> I think it was not foreseen in initial DNSO drafts (at least not
> in Paris one), and it is clearly human nature aspect.

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--