[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Comment-Dnso] NCDNHC recognition

I apologize for this late submssion, but as time constraints made
impossible that I presentd this comments during the open Board session,
I am submitting them now by mail for your consideration.

First of all, let me reiterte my strong support for your recognition of
the NCDNHC baed in the proposal submitted to you, recognition tht should
be effective as of today, and including the designations of the elected
NCDNHC representatives to the NC. Nothng that I could write below should
be interpreted as implying any delay in such recognition.

I just want to bring the Board's attention to a couple of issues
regarding this consituency proposal.

First of all, I would like that the Board request form the new
consituency to explain in some detail before the next ICANN meeting the
reasons that led to the esclusion of individual non.commercial owners
form their constituency. I don't want to be misundesrtood: I am not
requesting that they accept individuals, I am simplyasking for their
rationale in denying them the access to the Constituency. Know8ing the
rationale behind their decision will be of great help when we dicsuss
once again the role of individuals within DNSO and ICANN,a recurrent
topic, often ill-placed and surrounded of too many misunderstandings. 

The second point is more relevant. There was a lot of heated discussion
before the Berlin meeting about the possibility of electing the
constiuency NC reps before the actual recognition of the consituency
proposals. The majoritarian view was that this was perfctly acceptable,
provided that new electios were to be hold in a relatively short time
frame after recognition and establsihment. In the meantime, the
pre-selected reps are to be considered full members of the NC.

The NCDNH proposal says tat new elections will be hold only within six
months form now. I respectfully submit that this is unacceptable too
long, and encourage the Board to request the new constituency to
expedite such process.

The reason for asking this is not only to align their gorup with the the
rest of consitunecies, whcih is really important. It is also a equirment
form the own hisory of the current proposal. 

For a number of reasons theis constituency has been the one facing more
problems in having a commonly agreed proposal to be considered by the
Board. The fact that there is widespread support today around such
proposal should not allow us to foreget the long series of proposls,
couterproposals, failed compromises and genral fiascos. The outcome is
remarkable, the process has been enduring.

During this process some particpants have somehow dropped thir
participation, even if not their interest. Even if it is NOT  a poston
that I could shate, we have to respect the right of many organisations
to refuse to participate in "yet a new NCDNHC effort". They only will
come to join a "recognized" consituency. Nobodyhas been expressely
excluded form this effort, far form that, but some organizations have
felt themselves excluded by the very nature of the process and its
contentious nature. 

To make things only worse, the application process for the inital group,
was held during what are the summer holdiays in my part of the world,
whcih has prevented the initial participation of two organisations I
involved in the previous efforts, who have been among the supporters of
previous efforts, but failed to be now "here" as nobody was available in
due time to "apply once again".

Furthermore, all consituencies have been requested to selcet their
permanent NC members in time for the selectionof the DNSO three
Directors before the next Icann meeting in November. While many
consituencies have legitimate concerns about furher outreach efforts
being needed before holding the "permanent" elections to the NC, it is
only too fair and warranteed tat all of them are requested to expedite
the process for the reason expressd above. All of them , including the
new NCDNHC. We all could provide internal escuses, none of them should
be taken into account.

Once again, I would not like being misundersgtood: I have NO objection
to the process. I have NO objection to the elected reps and I strongly
advise the Board to recognize the proposal today. Furthermore I strongly
support Raul Echeberria, Kathy Kleiman and YJ Park in thiuer effort for
beingng this to a conclusion and consider them excellent choices as NC
members. My only point is that new elections should be held "before" the
scheduled six months, once all organiztions have had the chance to join
a more stable scenario: an alrady exisitng and recognized constituency.

No delays; equal rules.

Best regards, and warm congratualtions to the new consituency !!!!