Violation of ICANN Bylaws (was Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] FYI)

[Mike Todd]

Bill Semich,

I am one of those "quiet participants" in the NCDNHC constituency mainly
because I do not have a vote.  The Internet Society Los Angeles Chapter is a
member but has no voting status because ISOC would end up with too much
influence.

I would be happy to be less quiet but would feel more like my voice had some
meaning if a vote was associated with it.

However, I do not share your view that "participate", necessarily, includes
the ability to vote.

Mike Todd
President, Mike Todd Associates
www.MikeTodd.com
Supporting the Digital Coast

President, Internet Society Los Angeles Chapter
www.ISOC-LosAngeles.org

Vice President, Individual Membership, Internet Society
www.ISOC.org

  Voice:  714-846-7257
  FAX:    714-846-5716
  Cell:   714-222-3700

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. William Semich" <bill at mail.nic.nu>
To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>; <KathrynKL at aol.com>;
<vandrome at renater.fr>; <kent at songbird.com>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <touton at icann.org>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Violation of ICANN Bylaws (was Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] FYI)


Milton:

As you are a native English speaker, I am surprised at your lack of
understanding of the very specific meaning of the word "participate." The
definition in Webster's Dictionary is succinct and leaves little doubt:

"Participate: verb, intransitive; To have a share in common with others; to
partake, share."

In other words, anyone who "participates" in the NCDNHC must be able to
participate in common with others, to share in the constituency's
activities, without limitation.

If the ICANN bylaws wanted to *limit* activity, then they would have
spelled out the individual activities that members of other constituencies
must be allowed to take part in. They did not - they chose the more
general  word, "participate."

On the other hand, if the ICANN bylaws spelled out that members of other
constituencies could "vote" in any other constituency, as you think is
necessary, that *would* be a specific limitation - it would not let those
same members participate, say, in the email list or in face-to-face
meetings, if the constituency chose to limit that kind of participation.

The drafters of the ICANN bylaws consciously chose the more general word,
"participate," which includes voting, email list participation, face to
face meetings, and all other activities which the constituency members
share in common with each other.

I am surprised that other members of this constituency with backgrounds in
supporting stronger voter participation in civil societies, etc., are not
speaking up on this same issue here, in fact.

Bill Semich
Internet Users Society - Niue

At 12:35 PM 11/26/01 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Mr. Semich:
>
>"Participation" is not the same thing as "voting."
>If the ICANN bylaws wanted to prevent us from
>preventing organizations from "voting" due to
>their membership in another constituency, then
>they would have said "voting" and not "participating."
>
>Organizations that cannot vote are free to participate.
>Indeed, they are freer to participate in our affairs than
>in any other constituency.
>
>--MM
>
> >>> J. William Semich <bill at mail.nic.nu> 11/26/01 10:30AM >>>
>
>"Section 3. THE CONSTITUENCIES
>(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
>criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be
>excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
>participation in another Constituency ... "
>
>By excluding someone from the right to vote, Dany is blocking
>"participation" in this Constituency.

Bill Semich
President and CEO
.NU Domain Ltd
http://www.nunames.nu
bill at mail.nic.nu
+1 508 359 5600 ext 110

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss