[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Re: Call for comments on DNSO Names Council amendments (Deadline: August 10)
Esther and all,
I am so glad that you are soliciting comments. I wonder when you
are going to start reading them, and responding to them? Some questions,
that remain unanswered, Esther, are over a month old!
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Thanks, Karl.
> We are indeed soliciting comments as you suggest at the end. We have posted
> the announcement to multiple lists - and we heereby solicit further comments!
> Esther Dyson
> At 05:09 PM 04/08/99 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >> 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
> > that meeting.
> > ICANN was acting beyond its then-existing bylaws, and in advance of
> > this amendment.
> > 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
> > occurred.
> > 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.
> > --karl--
> Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
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.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208