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

Re: [IFWP] Re: [bwg-core] Proposed by-law amendments

Karl and all,

  Karl, very interesting points.  ANd ones that have been made nearly
countless times and questioned, most especially directly to the
ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board directly with only Joe Sims replying,
although very cryptically and evasively...  (See more below your comments)

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> > 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.
> I would suggest that perhaps the ICANN board already has the power to do
> this anyway.

  Indeed it does.

> According to one J. S., ICANN's board is responsible that the entity
> operate according to its charter.  (Not that this board has done this,
> i.e. operated according to its charter, but I'm speaking about theory, not
> practice.)

  Many times that are already very well documented in the ICANN
"Public Comments" archives, it has been pointed out that the ICANN
(Initial?) Interim Board also HAS NOT acted in accordance, in fact to
the contrary to it's own bylaws.  It seems that Joe Sims was being at least
honest that the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board, views it's bylaws as
practically worthless.  Hence they feel that they can adjust their
unilateral decision making abilities anyway they may choose...

> Since the NC is simply part of ICANN, the board has the innate power to
> reach in to *any* part of ICANN and make any changes it sees fit.

  Indeed it can and has...  Without I might add with the benefit of a
constituted membership, which is in direct conflict with the White
Paper and the MoU specifically...

> That is unless there are specific prohibitions against it in the organic
> documents.
> And, and here is where I really feel it is getting ugly, is that
> apparently ICANN feels that even if there are specific provisions, that
> the nature of the board's plenary power requires that those provisions be
> read to be useless and meaningless.

  Yep.  Kind of a catch 22...

> Remember my argument with Sims about those sections in the ICANN by-laws
> that specify that the board "shall" accept SO decisions unless certain
> exceptional situations are found?  Well that language isn't there because
> it looks pretty, it has meaning.  Yet ICANN says "hooey, it isn't worth
> the paper it is printed on because the board has to have the power to do
> what it needs to do."

  I sure remember it quite distinctly!

> (What is ironic is that the BWG proposals for a strong board vis a vis the
> SO's were resisted by those who are now ICANN, yet now they want the
> strong board.)

 Seems that they can't make up their minds.  A very sobering thought,
and one that indicates the inadequacy of this ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board.

> The problem with all of this stuff is that ICANN has made its self so
> mutible that it makes itself look like whatever it wants to look like.

  Yes, and unfortunate that is to be sure.  It is also contrary to stability
as well...

>                 --karl--


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208