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

[Comment-Dnso] changes in By-Laws


I appreciate the opportunity to respond.  It appears that the consensus of
submissions are strongly against the inclusion of more control by the ICANN
board.  I understand the need for changing the wording regarding the number of
members but I don't understand and I strongly protest the inclusion of more
control by the ICANN board over the NC.

Regarding Section 2(a) , I accept removing the number 3 but I don't approve of
any other rewriting.
I don't see any reason the ICANN board should have to resolve any dispute
about whether any such representative is a proper member of the NC.  The NC
should have authority to do that. 

Regarding Section 3(c) , I can accept the new wording.

Regarding Section 2(f), I can accept the new wording except for the phrase 
"or by a three-fourths majority vote of all members of the Board."  
Again the ICANN board should not have to remove a member of the NC.  I might
see a case for the NC to have the authority to remove a member but not the
ICANN board.

Thanks again.  

Jeffrey Graber

Jeffrey Graber, MAIP  
Founding Board Member, 
Association of Internet Professionals
( www.association.org )   jgraber@association.org

Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1