Re: [wg-d] Working Group Membership

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> >In the bylaws the term "member" is nowhere associated with the GA.  
> >There are "members" of the NC; and there are "members" of 
> >constituencies (in one place), but nowhere are "members" of the GA 
> >mentioned. 
> 
> This is a good observation. It would be odd indeed to allow an 
> organization or a company to be a member of a DNSO constituency but 
> disqualify them for participation in the GA or a WG. 

It may be "odd" to some.  I don't find it odd at all.  Constituency folks
can "participate" as individuals.  The formal element of constituencies
pokes through only insofar as working groups are required to have
a set of constituency designated representatives.

And the language of the ICANN bylaws is pretty clear that the GA "should"
be open only to individuals.  And since working groups are bodies of the
GA, and thus formed out of the units forming the GA, the working groups
are thus formed only by individuals.

Section VI-B 4(a) is the relevant one.  It is very badly drafted.  The
first sentence is ambigious; the key is the second sentence.  "The
participants in the GA should be individuals..."  It takes a bit of
work to find the meaning of "should", which throughout the rest of the
ICANN bylaws is used in lieu of "shall".

		--karl--