ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    ICANN Staff and Structure GA Chair Demands Suspension of ICANN Business Constituency for Charter Violation
    posted by michael on Friday August 17 2001, @03:49PM

    Danny Younger, the Chair of the ICANN General Assembly (GA), today accused the DNSO Business Constituency of hypocrisy, and of violating both its Charter and its By-Laws. In a detailed posting to the GA, copied to ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn, Chairman Younger labeled the constituency "no more than a cartel representing primarily Telcoms and intellectual property interests which seem to have no difficulty being in violation of their own rules while seeking to impose additional restrictions on others." He also said the constituency's violations merit suspension by the ICANN Board.



    Chairman Younger accuses the Business Constitency of
  • having two DNSO Names Council members from the telecoms sector, when the charter forbids this;
  • violating the charter requirement that constituency create a "research committee" staffed by volunteers before making certain policy decisions;
  • violating the charter requirement that special efforts be made to solicit the views of small and medium enterprises (SMEs);
  • failing to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner" by not even having a publicly archived mailing list;
  • violating the by-law requirement that names council members be appointed, when one current purported member of the names council, Marilyn Cade is an appointee filling out the term of Theresa Swinehart, who resigned her seat when she joined the ICANN staff.

    Chairman Younger's message concludes as follows:

    At this time the BC is no more than a cartel representing primarily Telcoms and intellectual property interests which seem to have no difficulty being in violation of their own rules while seeking to impose additional restrictions on others. There is no hesitancy on the part of the BC to deny individuals a voice in the ICANN process. The current BC position paper on the At-Large (drafted by Marilyn Cade) states:

    "For now, we believe there should be five regionally elected At-Large representatives on the ICANN Board - one per region." http://www.bizconst.org/positions/BCatlargepositionv4.doc

    Instead of the nine At-Large Directors that we were promised (to represent the rights of individuals on the ICANN Board), this Constituency seeks to have it permanently reduced to five.

    As long as they intend to deny individuals their right to participate in the ICANN process, I feel no personal remorse in challenging their fitness as a Constituency. While they are in violation of their Charter and the ByLaws, their status as a constituency should be suspended by the ICANN Board.


  •  
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • accused the DNSO Business Constituency of hypocrisy, and of violating both its Charter and its By-Laws
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    GA Chair Demands Suspension of ICANN Business Constituency for Charter Violation | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 24 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Just a Reminder
    by Anonymous on Saturday August 18 2001, @05:15PM (#1938)
    ...to all participants, that if you login and post under a username your posts get rated at "1" rather than "0", making them visible to readers who set their viewing threshold at 1 in the little box between the news text and the comments.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: GA Chair Calls for Suspension of ICANN Busines
    by Buckshot6 on Friday August 17 2001, @06:41PM (#1919)
    User #2948 Info
    I think it is about time someone speaks up about things going on that are not legal.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: GA Chair Calls for Suspension of ICANN Busines
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday August 17 2001, @08:06PM (#1921)
    User #2810 Info
    Anon (apparently Derek Conant) writes:
    I am a member of the DNSO GA and I do not believe it is correct for the DNSO GA Chair to take this kind of action without the full support of the DNSO GA constituency.
    I fail to see where Danny Younger claims to have the full support of the DNSO GA constituency (though for the record, this member supports him in doing so). If you have such concerns perhaps you should look for support amongst other GA members to have these concerns addressed. Unfortunately the DNSO GA is not made up of sock puppets so this might be difficult to achieve.

    BTW, Chair Younger has another interesting post to the GA list. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: DNSO GA Chair Should Act Responsibly
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday August 18 2001, @01:34PM (#1936)
    User #2810 Info
    Why are you posting this here instead of to the GA list? If you believe in the GA process as you profess to do, wouldn't that be proper protocol? Or are you not doing that because no-one else on the GA list has raised it as an issue so you assume (probably correctly) that you will receive no support?

    You haven't responded to my point elsewhere in this thread that Chair Younger makes no claim to be speaking for the GA in this matter. As an individual member he is just as free to send such a letter as you or I. As Chair of the DNSGA do you clear every word said on every subject with every imaginary friend?

    The last sentence of Chair Younger's letter, if you got that far, includes the statement I feel no personal remorse. He is speaking in the singular (something you might try instead of the Royal we BTW), he doesn't say the GA feels no group remorse. Nowhere does he claim to be speaking for the GA; no-one else on the GA seems to feel he is speaking for the GA, or claiming to speak for the GA; it is doubtful that the respondents will feel he is speaking for the GA; in short, you seem to be the only person thinking that he is speaking for the GA. If that is your point, fine. you are welcome to it, it is your right to hold it, you needn't belabor it, everyone gets it, no-one agrees with it. Please move on. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Mr. Younger Should Focus On The DNSO GA
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday August 18 2001, @05:36PM (#1939)
    User #2810 Info
    Anon (apparently Derek Conant) writes:
    In my opinion, Mr. Younger did use language in his message indicating his representation of the DNSO to ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn stating in the second paragraph, "Our constituencies are expected to act in accordance with the proposals..." and in the eighth paragraph, "It is also to be noted that our ByLaws state:...", etc.
    He is speaking as a member of the GA. You could speak the same way of ICANN if you had the foggiest understanding of the processes you claim to uphold. I could/would speak the same way of ICANN, but I am less quick to be possessive of such a prickly beast. If your entire case against Chair Younger is made up of this and like misreadings, as it seems to be, you should quit while you're behind.

    I believe that Mr. Younger appears to be a loose cannon
    So you've said. Again, strangely, here rather than on the GA list where it belongs (if anywhere). You can't be removed from the GA-full list no matter what you say so I don't know what you're worried about. Why then are you choosing this forum instead of the GA, where it would clearly be more appropriate? Is it because you would face many times the scorn available here? At the very least it must be because you know you will get no support there. If you believe in consensus then you must be aware your current crusade will not reach that level, no matter how one defines it. So why not give it up? It seems fairly obvious who the loose cannon is. A suggestion: if you remain intent on continually shooting yourself in the foot, you might first consider removing it from your mouth. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com