Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 10:38 AM 6/22/99 , Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >What exactly is the specific point of the Paris Draft that is so
> different
> >in the current DNSO to make you switch from a supporter of the process (I
> >assume that if the Paris Draft would have been accepted as the basis of
> the
> >DNSO by ICANN, you would have supported it) to an unconditional opponent
> >"tout-court" of ICANN.
>
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
> The Paris Draft allowed for constituencies
> to self-form upon the attainment of 5% of
> the General Membership (which was open to all
> Domain Name stakeholders). In addition, it
> restricted these members to ONE constituency
> of *their* choice.
>
Hi Jay.
I still think that this is not sufficient to change the attitude towards
ICANN, but this is only my own opinion.
On the substance, you know that I was in favour of this mechanism to add
constituencies, and, to be frank, I think that the game is still open.
The fact that this specific mechanism has not been hardcoded in the bylaws
does not mean that the 7 initial constituencies will remain the same
forever. My guess is that the final word has to be said by the DNSO GA. If a
clear majority is in favour of this mechanism, I don't see how this cannot
be implemented. If there's no majority in favour, well, it would have been
silly to have this in the bylaws in first place.
> Without these protections, and without ICANN
> making sure that the constituency formation
> process remained fair, you have gaming like:
> - The ICANN Board initially approving
> seven constituencies, six of which are
> commercial in nature.
> - The ICANN Board only recognizing six
> constituencies (all commercial), then
> asking them to approve the WIPO report.
> - Organizations like MCI being over
> represented in the Names Council.
> - Etc, etc, etc.
>
I fail to see the relation between what you point out and the 5% provision.
As far as the self-quoting, repeating things don't make them more true ;>).
Regards
Roberto
