[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Comment-Dnso] Proposed by-law amendments

The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power
in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and
its constituents.

The amendment to Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws
allows the ICANN Board to resolve disputes about which member of
a constituency is recognized as a Names Council member. Such
disputes should be resolved by the constituency itself,
according to their own rules.

The amendment to Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws
deals with two issues. On the question of geographical
diversity, the ICANN Board has created distrust by its apparent
willingness to make exceptions for trademark interests and other
big business constituents. Once again, I would prefer not to see
discretionary power in the hands of the board. Either enforce
geographical diversity or don't. On the second question, while I
agree with the provision that a constituency cannot have more NC
representatives than it has members, I do not agree with
limiting the number of nominations a member can make.

The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f)
of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN
Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office.
Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for
placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of
the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own
methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is
too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this
provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to
reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members.

m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/