[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Specific Language Recommendations Re: latest draft
This is floated for myself, not for DNRC.
1) Article IV Section 1(c) of the Articles should be amended to eliminate
the phrase "unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause."
Reason: It is at best redundant, since if substantial and reasonable cause
exists the party shall not be "singled out". At worst, it justifies
precisely the disparate treatment it was meant to prevent.
1a) The following sentence should be added to the above referenced
article: "A right of action shall exist under this section identical to
that granted under (e) of this section."
Reason: I see no reason why acts of individual discrimination should be
treated less severely than acts that do economic damage.
2) Article V Section 5 Additional Qualifications
The following language should be added: "Representatives of national
governments and of intergovernmental bodies may, upon request, attend
meetings of the board of directors as observers. As observers, they shall
be entitled to participate in discussion, although they shall have no right
to vote."
Reason: Like it or not, governments do have an interest in this.
Furthermore, governments potentially provide additional protection to
interests not otherwise represented. This strikes me as a good compromise
between government participation (not desired) and government involvement
(desired).
3) Article V Section 6, International Representation
This should be amended to treat Canada and the United States as separate
regions.
Reason: The interests of Canada and the United States are *not* identical.
These two countries have the greatest number of Internet users, yet they
will have the least representation through being forced to share as one
region.
4) Article V Section 14 Regular Meetings
The following language should be included: "There is a strong presumption
that regular meetings of the Board of Directors will be open to the public.
Therefore, unless the Board by majority vote declares the meeting close,
members of the public will permitted to attend these meetings. The Board
may require that those wishing to attend notify the Board in advance.
A meeting may be called as a closed meeting, in which case the Board must
reaffirm that the meeting will be closed by majority vote at least 72 hours
before the meeting. Voting shall take place by telephone or email, as
described elsewhere in these bylaws.
No individual or organization shall be barred from an open meeting,
although the Board may establish necessary rules to insure that business
proceeds in an orderly fashion."
Reason: This will secure openess. Although the Annual meeting will be
open, it has the potential to be a mere dog and pony show. Openness means
seeing the backroom operations. These rules strike a ablance between
letting the Board operate efficiently and preserving openess and
transparency of process.
The last clause is extremely important. The Board must not be permitted to
exclude "inconvenient" groups, or be permitted to allow picked favorites to
attend while excluding the public.
This same language should apply to Section 16, "Special meetings."
Regarding Supporting organizations, the following points need
clarification:
a) Can the SO reject an application that satisfies all objective criteria
for membership.
b) Does the Board approve applications for membership to an SO
In addition, the following specific language should be included somewhere:
"An SO may not exclude an organization based on economic criteria. If the
SO requires a membership fee, and the applicant meets all other objective
criteria for membership, than, upon a proper showing of need, the SO shall
waive the membership fee and any other dues, fees or payments that would
prevent the applicant from joining the SO."
Reason: This language is necessary to prevent lockout. For example, most
of the public interest groups could not afford the $10,000 to join CORE.
What stops a Names Council consisting of wealthy trade organizations and large corporations from excluding smaller entities by requiring an up-front
$50,000 payment to join?
Harold Feld
For myself, not DNRC
!
!
!
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy