[atlarge-discuss] Re: Constituency

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 07:06 a.m. 13/02/2003, Danny  wrote:

> My proposal is fairly straight-forward:  Let us petition the Board for
> recognition as a new Constituency.  I am willing to devote time and energy to
> a collaborative attempt to prepare such a petition (which I presume would be
> accompanied by a Charter for such a constituency).  In my estimation, both
> the Charter and the petition could be available for presentation to the Board
> at the upcoming meeting if we throw ourselves wholeheartedly into this
> endeavor.  Let me know your thoughts...
I have outlined part of my thoughts in my  response to DPF.
Yes, it is good to try again and see if the Board would go along with 
implementing its own Bylaws on the admission of a new constituency.
I am willing to help with it, but I would want

1. a constituency that is little more than an umbrella structure (just like 
I would want it for the At Large)
2. a constituency that accepts a multi-party democracy (ditto)

Would you go along with that?
In fact your  Constituency will look an awful lot like a structured 
icannatlarge, except that it will be limited to DN holders.

My only problem with it is the timing.  There are a lot of bystanders , but 
very few people driving the structuring of the At Large.
These are the people also needed to drive the structuring (Chartering) of a 
new DN holders constituency  for the GNSO.

At Large is now in a crisis that needs action. Bylaw fragments have to be 
written and the membership needs to be polled on them and ratify them. 1000 
members signed up and expected the people that they elected to arrange such 
things for them.

A big shift to work on a new goal is a distraction, unless you mean to give 
up on the icannatlarge and re-focus on an area where you believe is more 
chance of success.

Do you believe
a. that DN Holders will have more influence on ICANN policymaking via the 
new GNSO than via the indirect chance to get Individual-Registrant friendly 
directors on the Board?
b. that there is a reasonable chance that the current Board will now 
approve a Petition that was ignored (I'm not saying "rejected") 3 years 
ago, when they were less in siege -mode?
c. that both efforts can proceed at the same time, without one being a 
distraction to the other

Let me know,




-joop-



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de