RE: [wg-review] Please submit your proposal for DNSO Review

["Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>]

YJ, I'm confused - did you expect Ken's support on this?

Judith

from Proposed NC agenda 24 January 2001,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00180.html, fyi

13. Request from GA for NC to consider an Individuals Constituency (YJ) 5
     mins (see supporting document from Ken Stubbs)
        o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00527.html

Here's Ken's "supporting" document:

To: <nc-intake@dnso.org>, "names council" <council@dnso.org>
Subject: [council] Re: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC
teleconferences
From: kstubbs@digitel.net (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:33:57 -0500
References: <200011242200.XAA23469@dnso.dnso.org>
<002f01c059a9$e26b45c0$9e74da18@ne.mediaone.net>
<014a01c059cd$78492080$eb00a8c0@idns.net>
Sender: owner-council@dnso.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

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.




http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com
"An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld;
"superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly
useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers.
ICB Premium Service is On Sale thru January 15.
http://www.icbtollfree.com/Article4910.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of YJ Park
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 1:58 PM
> To: DPF; wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-review] Please submit your proposal for DNSO Review
>
>
> > We could start by using such definitions in our own WG report.
>
> It's time to sort the issues out.
> Waiting for the proposals to come in, I draw some draft structure.
>
> 1. Appreciating Jonathan Weinbeger who has responded to NC
>     Review TF questionaire which was formally requested by NC
>     on Dec. 19, I do submit his comments as one of proposals.
>
> 2. Do we need Constituency?
>
> 3. If we need, how to create New Constituencies?
>
> 4. Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency Needs recognition.
>
> 5. How can we achieve or measure "Consensus"?
>
> 6. Money Talks in DNSO/ICANN?
>
> Please send your proposals!!
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html