[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair - Covering for ICANN?
- To: email@example.com, ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair - Covering for ICANN?
- From: "Brian C. Hollingsworth" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 16:41:27 +0100
- CC: email@example.com
- Organization: IHOJ - International House of Justice, Sr. Legal Advisor
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Mr. Sola and Everyone,
I readily realize that you are a strong supporter of the current ICANN
Interim Board (Legitimate?). This none the less, is not a good reason
for you or anyone to attempt to switch the responsibility for this
ICANN Interim Board violation of it's own bylaws in this instance.
> I thought that you were a little more constructive... but here is the
> answer anyway.
> Please read the Berlin resolution regarding this fact. It says that NSI
> would have only one representative in the Names Council, and that if it
> tried to force te presence of three, ICANN would be forced to change the
> Bylaws, which it is in the process of doing now.
> The provisional NC is a committee of ICANN and -as such- follows the
> resolutions of the ICANN Board and its interpretation of the bylaws.
> NSi was told in the first meeting of the Names Council (june 12th) that
> they could only have one representative, and that if they had a problem
> with that, they should talk to the ICANN Board, not to us. Now ICANN has
> decided that they can have three until the bylaws are changed, which will
> happen soon.
> The minutes of that meeting are published in the DNSO website.
> Any other violations of the bylaws you can think of? As our mailing list is
> public and so are our meetings, they should be easy to spot.
> Next time please consult the archives.
> At 12:11 6/08/99 +0200, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >In light of the comment quoted below, I would be grateful if you could
> >lay to rest once and for all an allegation I have seen often repeated:
> >It is alleged that the pNC refused to allow certain duly selected
> >representatives of the gTLD constituency to attend a telephone meeting
> >held a few weeks ago.
> >Is this factually inaccurate?
> >Were the people not actual delegates?
> >Or, was the refusal to allow their participation not a violation of the
> >Javier SOLA wrote:
> >> You know quite well that the pNC has at no point violated the bylaws.
> >A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | firstname.lastname@example.org
> >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> > --> It's hot there. I'm elsewhere. <--
Brian C. Hollingsworth
Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet
Communications Affairs and Policy
Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European