It was in the document that Nick just sent out to us, third page, second paragraph under the subheading "Second Criteria". D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:52 PM To: Thompson, Darlene; Wendy Seltzer; nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Sorry, can't locate the reference... Where exactly in the ICANN bylaws did you find that? --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it? The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
If an org-of-orgs fulfills the above, why in the world would we want to impose a barrier to it? Am I missing something here??
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:58 PM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: John L; Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
I disagree. The ICANN General Counsel represents ICANN, not us. We are independently charged with interpreting and acting upon the bylaws, and may or may not reach the same conclusion as the GC.
--Wendy
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses.
On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
The other thing is that the no orgs-of-orgs
language is in the ICANN
bylaws. I entirely agree that it is arbitrary, and there are good reasons that they might want to change it. The bylaws are not written in stone, and we (the ALAC) have gotten the board to change language that didn't work in the past. But rather than doing that, does anyone really think that it is a good idea simply to ignore bylaws that we don't like?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com