[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Comment-Dnso] Re: Call for comments on DNSO Names Council amendments (Deadline: August 10)
> The ICANN Board has posted a proposed set of amendments to the ICANN Bylaws
> relating to the DNSO Names Council. Most notably, the proposed amendments
> are intended to limit any one company or organization to one representative
> on the DNSO Names Council.
A couple of points:
1. These proposed changes were not in effect during the Berlin meeting.
Indeed, at the time of the Berlin meeting, the By-laws gave all
recognized constituncies the power and right to designate three
people to the names council of the DNSO.
Yet when that was tried by one recognized constituency, those people
were excluded despite the presence of ICANN's CEO and legal counsel at
ICANN was acting beyond its then-existing bylaws, and in advance of
This amendment does not have retroactive effect.
It is evident that the the gTLD Constituency was acting within its
rights at the time of the Berlin, and that the exclusion of
its designated names council representatives was an act by ICANN in
contravention of ICANN's bylaws.
Given that the DNSO has proceeded into substantive issues, this
failure taints everything that the DNSO has done to date.
2. This amendment cites an "evident consensus". How was that "evident
consensus" ascertained? Certainly at the time of the Berlin meeting
this question had neither been clearly asked nor discussed in any
forum. And having listened into the Berlin meetings, I can attest
that I did not perceive any discussion of these matters, much less
the "clear sentiment of the attendees and online particpants."
If I don't make myself clear, let me be blunt:
I perceive no evidence to support the claim that there was such a
consensus in existance at the time of the Berlin meeting, in
particular at the time of the exclusion of the gTLD's designated
representives to the Names Council.
I do agree that at the present time there may indeed be such a
consensus, a consensus that has evolved *after* the exclusion
But this is merely a guess based on exactly the same evidence
as is available to ICANN's board. And I, like the ICANN board,
could be utterly wrong whether such a consensus actually exists
at the present time.
Rather than the blind and unsubstantated claim of "evident consensus"
made in the ICANN anouncement, may I suggest that ICANN actually take
an explicit poll of the various mailing lists to elicit actual opinions
pro and con on this question.
I will begin the process: I think that this amendment is a useful
improvement to the ICANN by-laws.