Paragraph 4.1; second line

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

"The second [key element to the GNSO Review] is a
review of each of the Constituencies which constitute
the GNSO to determine whether those Constituencies
represent the interests of global stakeholders in an
open and transparent manner."

The wording of this point seriously deviates from the
requirements under the bylaws, which state:

"Each Constituency shall maintain its recognition, and
thus its ability to select GNSO Council
representatives, only so long as it in fact represents
the interests globally of the stakeholder communities
it purports to represent, and shall operate to the
maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent
manner and consistent with procedures designed to
ensure fairness."

The objective, therefore, is to determine not only
whether those Constituencies represent the interests
of global stakeholders in an open and transparent
manner, but whether they have been conducting their
operations in an open and transparent manner "to the
maximum extent feasible".  

This is a critical point -- certain constituencies
indeed do operate in an open and transparent manner to
the maximum extent feasible (such as the registrars)
by holding discussions with their constituent members
on publicly-archived mailing lists that everyone can
view, while other constituencies have chosen to
wilfully ignore the ICANN bylaws and act to
deliberately shield all of their discussions from
public view.

We should not accept paragraph 4.1 as written in that
it serves to hide the dirty truth of reprehensible
behavior on the part of certain constituencies who
only offer lip-service to their obligation to act in
keeping with transparency requirements. 



        
                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com