[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Agenda proposal
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda proposal
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:56:11 +0100
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <14858C5D7DA4D111B0A90001FA371FD1026D17AA@sg_m1.iaea.org>
Roberto and all,
> > the IDNO constituency ,if it has already successfully carried out its
> > elections for the NC, can be provisionally part of the NC,
> > until the ICANN
> > Board confirms its recognition of them.
> I agree, with a caveat.
> I believe that the status should be of observer, not of full voting member
> (supposing that voting will be carried out).
Well we know that it is likely that some voting will be carried out. Hence
relegating the IDNO to and "Observer" status is insufficient and inconsistent
with the agreements taken in Berlin.
> Otherwise we will have a severe formal problem. What if the IDNO is *not*
> recognized by ICANN, should the voting be recalculated taking out the IDNO
This should not be a concern. SHould the ICANN not recognize the IDNO
they by default are in violation of the White paper and their own resolution
on the formation of the DNSO taken in Berlin.
> > This is what is meant with bottom-up organization. There is no need to
> > await the word from on high.
> You know that I am in favour of the Individual DN Holders constituency, so I
> hope you will not take this comment in the bad sense.
> Either we agree to work within ICANN's framework, or we don't.
Not entirely correct Roberto. Any framework in accordance with the
MoU and the White Paper, as well as the ICANN's own bylaws must be
a framework that meets the "Consensus" of the stakeholder community.
In that there is not Membership as part of the ICANN, than any framework
now being considered is questionable at best...
> In the latter case, the bottom-up process can be pushed up to the point of
> proclaiming unilaterally a new Council with new rules, which will keep us
> free of deciding who is in and who is out without recognition by ICANN.
> In the former case, though, we have to stick to the rules, and namely that a
> constituency has to be recognized by ICANN before becoming part of the
Nonsense. (See just above)
> I believe that the second option is the one that has the support of the
> majority, i.e. the rough consensus in the GA.
Ok, how are you going to measure that consensus Roberto? If you
can't measure it, than you can't claim that you have a consensus.
> > To constitute the NC just days before ICANN would recognize
> > the IDNO, so
> > that it is too late for the IDNO delegates to be included, would not
> > enhance the legitimacy of the NC.
> Agree, it would not enhance it.
> OTOH, to add to the Council voting members of a constituency that has not
> been recognized by ICANN (yet) will completely kill the legitimacy of the
> Council's decisions.
The council itself has no consensus in and of itself. This should be
determined as the FIRST order of business in Santiago.
> Again, I hope that the 1/3 undecided - this was the share in Berlin - will
> support the Individual DN Holders Constituency, and that this one is
> recognized in Santiago, but I cannot accept the idea (within the current
> legal framework, i.e. the ICANN Bylaws) of the unilateral addition of a
Yeah right Roberto. A more disingenuous statement coming from you
in this process has yet to be stated by anyone...
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.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208