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

["Brian C. Hollingsworth" <bholling@ix.netcom.com>]

Jeff and Everyone,

  Mr. Sola's demeanor and attitude has not gone unnoticed by many in the
EU and EC of late.  Some private discussions that I have had have
expressed much dismay in his attitude and deliberance of dictating
"Edicts" as if he were some sort of "Royal Line".  I tend to agree
with Jeff's and I have noticed of late, others characterization of
Mr. Sola a "Generalisimo", as likely appropriate.  It may be time for
the
ICANN Interim Board to take this fellow aside and council him
sternly....

Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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
> enough,
> 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...
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> 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
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:18:36 -0700
> From: "Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>
> To: ga@dnso.org
>
> 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"
> Constituencies:
>
>   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
>   minutes:
>
>        ccTLD registries
>        Commercial and business entities
>        gTLD registries
>        Intellectual property
>        ISPs and connectivity providers
>        Registrars
>
>   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.

Respectfully,

--
Brian C. Hollingsworth
Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet
Communications  Affairs and Policy
Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European
Union