Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Amadeu, Michael and all,

  Amadeu, you make allot of claims here that are not in evidence, nor
have they been confirmed or posted anywhere that I can find.
(See More below your comments)...

Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:

> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> [...]
>
> >
> > Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > * Singapore and Berlin meetings were unanimous (well...) in the feeling that
> > > no single org should be able to appoint more than one NC rep. NSI did not
> > > disopute this.
> > >
> > > * NSI designated three reps (Don Telage, Richard Sexton and Joop Teernstra),
> > > The BoDasked them to reconsider the decision and appoint only one, and
> > > representing gTLD interests.
> >
> > As noted by many others in this thread, Sexton and Teernstra (yes,
> > nominated for tactical reasons by people with vested interests we should
> > all suspect) were in fact representative of
> > constituences otherwise denied a seat at the table, and still denied a
> > seat at the table to this day.  If we are to rely
> > on the "spirit" of the text rather than its letter (and I agree this is
> > not in
> > any way a ridiculous position for anyone to take) then it seems to me
> > that the spirit of representation was well served by these nominations.
> > I gather you do not agree.  May I ask why?
> >
>
> My opinions on Richard or Joop are indeed inrrelevant. Wjat I noted is that
> they were appointed by NSI as "gTLD" Consttuency representatives" while, s you
> note, they claimed to represent "other" intrests form "consituencies" not
> recognised as such.

  I don't know of any substantiated evidence either rom NSI or JOOP, or
RICHARD, that this contention that they were assigned by NSI, is indeed
factual.  Even if they were, that is not relevant in either the IDNO's case
or the GTLDA.  Can you adequately substantiate your claim here??

> This has nothing to do with inclusion, democarcay or the
> spirit of anarchy. Also note that I satated that it was the BoD who asked NSI
> to reconsider their postion (the nominations, both as the numeber tand the
> representation), not me.

  Ok, but how does this give the BOD as you put it here that right?  Or
isn't this a direct violation of the existing ICANN Bylaws?

>
>
> > >
> > > * Durning a NC telconf, NC ws instructed by the BoD and ICANN counsel not to
> > > allow the three reps mentioned above in. So the preson chairng that
> >
> > This is interesting.  Could you name names please?  Who precisely
> > "instructed" precisely who on the NC to do this?
> >
> As I say below, the person chairing the telconf was Javier. The "regular"
> communications channel between pNC and GoD is Mike Roberts. The counsel is Joe Sims. I
> insit that there was clear communication, in wiritng, among NSI and
> Mike Roberts regarding this issue.

  Ok, where prior to the June 11th teleconference is that written communications
that you refer to?

>
>
> Let me explainb you something else: during ALL DNSO formation meetings
> /barcelona, Monterey, Washington and Sinapore) we faced at one moment or
> another to what extent the constituecnies were free to establish rules for
> themselves (as to elections; etc) and to what extent the DNSO as such could
> have a say. The usual vague compromise always was that Cosntiuencies had the
> rgiht t establish their own rules (membership; voting)...provided that the
> DNSO (the NC) did not felt that those rules could harm the DNSO as such
> (imagine of the consituency clisng its membership just after recognition, or
> establishing special voting rights for the founding members....).

  This needs to be documented and publicly available or it is not legitimate.
It also should be first approved and voted upon by the DNSO GA, and than
again approved by the ICANN Membership in order to meet the base
requirements of the White Paper and the MoU.  To my knowledge neither
of the proper steps has been taken either.

>
>
> In this regards, let me say that regardless of what happended in this or that
> teleconf, it was the unanimous pNC feeing that NSI's behavoiur was perfectly
> irregular and unacceptable.
> > > teleconference (Javier) stated that only one of them could stay, and told the
> > > other two to leave. If I am not mistaken the three of them left the teleconference.
> > >
> > > * NSI informed again that they had apointed three gTLD NC reps (Don Telage,
> > > David Johnson and Phil Sbarbaro). As the Byalwas were clear in their spirti
> > > but open to interpetation to some extent (and this is also my perosnal
> >
> > On what theory do you construe the text as open to interpretation?  In
> > other words, as a matter of textual interpretation, on what view do you
> > find that the TEXT supports your position?  Or are you reiterating the
> > argument from the "spirit" of the text?
> >
> ????
>
> Waht I am saying is that, despite the fact that everyone was perfecly
> convinced (including NSI) that no company was able to appoint more than one NC
> rep, the bylaws simply say that each rĄconsituency would appoint three of
> them. The conflict comes from the fact that no special restircition is put on
> the gTLD constituency in the current circumstances. It depends on whether you
> give mre weight to the "three per constituency" or the corporation-specific
> limitation. But this limitation is, in my view, porly worded: it limits the
> number of "officers and employees" of a given entity, but therefore leaves
> room to "external" reps, appointed by the same entity.
>
> > > opinion) the ICANN counsel on one side, and the NC on the other (decided to
> > > allow the three gTLD (NSI) reps in as full `NC members. Most of us noted that
> > > this was clarly against community consensus, passt compromises and any logi.
> >
> > The relevant community of which I am aware professes to be for
> > inclusion.  Yet important sets of constituencies are excluded.
>
> Wait a minute, Michael. No consituency is excluded. You might consider that
> some interests are not adequately represented., Bair enough. We could agree.
> But if, for instance, the non-commercial consituency is not yet "there" it is
> simply because its "promoters" have failed to present an accepted proposal in
> time. And if the rgistrars failed to have voting reps in the inital NC
> meetigns, it is simply because we needed more htime than others to run the
> elections. Don't mix things up.
>
> >
> > > But as the Bylaws "could" perhaps be read as allowing NSI to appont three
> > > reps, well, it was not that wise to make a battle over it (pleae note the
> > > diffeent slate of reps they rpesented the second time, and that at lest the
> > > second version abided to the principle of gTLD interest represntation...).
> >
> > I find it especially depressing that you find the second NSI slate
> > preferrable to the first.  It does not comport with the spirit of
> > inclusion -- it's just 3 NSI employees.  Why ICANN and indpendent
> > thinkers such as yourslef should find that better than people like
> > Sexton and Teenstra is a great puzzle to me.  Can you explain?
> >
> Sorry to depress you.
>
> Once again, my personal opinions about Sexton or Joop co8unt for nothing. Plz
> bear in mind that it was NSUI who changed its mind and appointed David Johnson
> and Phil Sbarbaro, not me....
>
> What i ahve said, and repeat here (even taking the risk to furhter depress
> you) is that the BoD indicated to NSI that they were not supposed to appoint
> people not represneitng the interests fo the gTLD constituency as defined.
> Full period.
>
> I shall insist that you are mising thing beyond any acceptable point: the gTLD
> representatives, or the registrars are that, are tnot the testbed for worlwide
> democracy. They have a dutyr to erform: represent the consitucny interests
> witin the NC. Nothing else.

  And this should be determined by the grass roots folks that started the gtlda.
Not the pNC or anybody else.  Than it should be voted upon by the
DNSO GA at a minimum.

>
>
> It is a perfectly legitimate claim to beleive that the NC composition is not
> balanced, and that some other interests should be represented. But you cannot
> use this argument to subvert the role of the recognized consituencies.
>
> David Johnson is acceptable as a gTLD rep. Joop is not. This has nothing to do
> with their respective general abilities to become NC members "in general".

  Why is Joop not?

>
>
> BTW, David is NIOT a NSI employee. And I hope neither Phil is, as this would
> certaily be a clearcut violation of the Bylaws.
>
> All in all, this discussion is missing the real fact: regardless of what
> NSIdid, what the Bylaws say or who was appointed, there was a clear bsis for
> the "armisitece", clearly spelled out by all parties: NSI pointed three reps,
> nobody challenges that, and ICANN proposeds an immediate amendment to the
> Byalwas "to bring thigns back to normality". IE, no company being able to put
> three officers, directors or employees or able to select three NC by any other way.
>
> The rest is, how do yoy say that?: "trying to split hairs in four pieces"....
> And I will try not to get engaged in these exercises.
>
> Amadeu

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