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

[Fwd: Generalisimo Sola (DNSO) rebuffed.. was: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair]

Mark and all,

  Excellent rebuff of the Generalisimo.

  I believe though I do not know that Generalisimo Sola has either
not read the ICANN Bylaws and Berlin resolutions at all of closely
or he is attempting to misstate and there fore misuse those resolutions
and/or bylaws.  I have tried to point this out along with many others
to the Generalisimo, and it seems that he is unable to grasp the
reality of the facts they currently exist...


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---- Begin included message ----

On 3 August 1999, Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es> wrote:
>Please show some respect for the bylaws and the consensus that they
>represent. They are the working tool that we have now. It has taken a very
>long time to reach this agreement. It is very bad policy to start playing
>with them for the benefit of a specific group, you might get the other
>groups that have reached consensus on the bylaws very annoyed.

Okay!  In that case, Mr. Sola, please declare all WG activity null and
void, because none of the WGs meet the following criteria, taken
directly from the ICANN bylaws, which you tout so strongly:

  Section 2:  THE NAMES COUNCIL 

  (b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
  process of the DNSO.  It shall adopt such procedures and policies as
  it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, including the
  designation of such research or drafting committees, working groups
  and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry
  out the substantive work of the DNSO.  Such bodies shall include at
  least one representative nominated by each recognized Constituency,

  and shall provide appropriate means, as determined by the NC, for
  input and such participation as is practicable under the circumstances
  by other interested parties.  Any reports or recommendations presented
  to the NC by such bodies shall be posted on a web site accessible by
  the public for public review and comment; absent clear justification,
  which shall be publicly stated at the time of any action, the NC shall
  not act on any report or recommendation until a reasonable time for
  public comment has passed and the NC has reviewed and evaluated all
  public comments received. The NC is responsible for ensuring that all
  responsible views have been heard and considered prior to a decision
  by the NC.

No WG is composed of at laest one representative nominated by each
recognized Constituency.

Furthermore, there is doubt as to whether there exist "recognized"

  ICANN Resolutions, May 27, 1999: 

  Resolution on DNSO Constituencies 

  The Board discussed the applications received to date from groups
  desiring to form Constituencies of the Domain Names Supporting
  Organization. After consideration, the Board unanimously adopted the
  following resolutions.

  RESOLVED, that the following Constituencies (as defined in Article
  VI-B of the Bylaws) are provisionally recognized until the annual
  meeting of the Board in 1999, 

                                to operate in accordance with the
  proposals received by the Corporation and ordered attached to these

       ccTLD registries 
       Commercial and business entities 
       gTLD registries 
       Intellectual property 
       ISPs and connectivity providers 

  FURTHER RESOLVED, that the President of the Corporation is directed to
  work with the Constituencies to amend their proposals to address
  deficiencies noted by the Board, which amended proposals must include
  a commitment of the submitting Constituency to hold a new election of
  Names Council representatives promptly following the approval by the
  Board of such amended proposal.

  FURTHER RESOLVED, that, when such proposals are so amended, the Board
  should examine such proposals to determine whether the deficiencies
  have been satisfactorily addressed and whether to extend the
  recognition today made.
---- End included message ----