[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] [Fwd: Generalisimo Sola (DNSO) rebuffed.. was: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair]
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
ICANN Interim Board to take this fellow aside and council him
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
> 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 email@example.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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> On 3 August 1999, Javier SOLA <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Brian C. Hollingsworth
Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet
Communications Affairs and Policy
Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European