[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Open and closed ----> yesterday's phone call
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] Open and closed ----> yesterday's phone call
- From: "Brian C. Hollingsworth" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:07:32 +0100
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, Esther Dyson <email@example.com>
- Organization: IHOJ - International House of Justice, Sr. Legal Advisor
- References: <19990813203315765.AAG407@gromit.edventure.com@karachinsky>
Ms. Dyson and Everyone,
Ms. Dyson, as the CEO of ICANN, it seems a bit strange that you would draw
this conclusion for the GAC. Is it not an ICANN appointed committee?
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Short answer:
> No, open v. closed was not on the agneda (or discussed) on the phone call
> yesterday. You can see what we *did* discuss - the NC, and the rationale for
> the decisions - in the minutes posted at the ICANN site.
> The GAC sets its own agenda, and we are not responsible for what it
> considers....or advises.
> At 01:48 PM 13/08/99 +0000, Kerry Miller wrote:
> >Per the posted minutes of the Berlin meeting (5/27/99),
> > http://www.icann.org/minutes/berlinminutes.html :
> >"Finally, on a related matter, staff reported that ICANN had
> >solicited public comments on the question of whether "initial DNSO
> >Constituencies currently identified as 'ccTLD registries' and 'gTLD
> >registries' be re-categorized as 'open registries' and 'closed
> >registries,' identified according to whether the registry is open to
> >any registrant, worldwide ('open'), or is instead limited to certain
> >registrants based on geography, intended use, or other criteria
> >('closed')," and that the response had been largely negative;
> >therefore, the staff did not recommend taking any action on the
> >matter at this time."
> >Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental Advisory
> >Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" for the BoD?
> >Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC for this advice, against
> >the recommendations of "staff"? Although there is no evidence that
> >the issue was revisited 6/23, was it on the agenda for the 8/12
> >telephone meeting?
> >On a related note, I suggest that ICANN and its associated groups
> >and committees make an effort to put the dates of origin and last-
> >modification on their web pages? In particular reference to
> >amendments to the Bylaws, where the 'paper trail' itself might be of
> >interest, could this annotation be expanded to preserve rather than
> >over-write the earlier version(s)?
> >Appreciating that following this up with any consistency is likely to
> >have only low priority for staff resources, I volunteer my hard drive
> >as a repository, and will provide the 5 Jun version of the ICANN
> >Bylaws, on request. (The relevant sections (2) and (3) are
> >appended below.) I hope someone with more resources can
> >archive the "extensive public comment," including the
> >documentation when "this matter was first discussed at ICANN's
> >May meetings in Berlin." (I note at the URL given above, that
> > Resolution 99.35 says only that" the Board requests that the
> >Constituency for gTLD registries agree... to select only one
> >individual (rather than three) to represent that Constituency on the
> >provisional Names Council, and the Board states that if such
> >Constituency does not agree to make only one such selection, the
> >Board will amend the Bylaws to effectuate such goal." The minutes
> >make no note of extensive public comment at that meeting, or that
> >the resolution embodied a consensus of attendees altho I agree
> >that some of the other resolutions (also appended) suggest there
> >was some concern at least on the part of the Interim Board.
> >While there is certainly a "need of the DNSO Names Council for
> >prompt clarification of its membership structure," I confess I am
> >surprised that this reversal of policy was not considered a
> >"significant Internet policy issue" to be discussed at a quarterly
> >meeting rather than on a special meeting teleconference. Has the
> >DNSO in fact "amended its proposal"? (icann.org/dnso/ does not
> >apparently refer to any proposal, nor have the "organizers of the
> >provisional Names Council" done so at http://www.dnso.org/
> >kerry miller
> >Agenda for ICANN GAC (Meeting III, 9:00am to 6:30pm [!],
> >8/24/99 ) Santiago, Chile
> >4.Discussion on domains containing restrictions or conditions on
> >registration that serve to ensure certainty with respect to the
> >application and enforcement of laws ("restricted domains"), as
> >opposed to domains containing no such restrictions or conditions
> >on registrations ("open domains").
> >5.Discussion on principles for the delegation of management for
> >As posted 5 June, VI (2) a reads in its entirety:
> >" The NC shall consist of three representatives from each
> >Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set
> >forth in Section 3 of this Article."
> >VI (3)c reads in part:
> > " Nominations within each Constituency may be made by any
> >member of the Constituency, but no such member may make more
> >than one nomination in any single Constituency; provided that this
> >limitation shall not apply to any Constituency with less than
> >three members."
> >As amended 12 August:
> > "The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance
> >with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency
> >recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
> >3 of this Article."
> > "Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Constituency may have more
> >representatives on the NC than there are members of the
> >Further minutes of the Berlin meeting (my emphasis):
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.32), that the President of
> >the Corporation is directed to work with the Constituencies to
> >amend their proposals to address deficiencies noted by the Board,
> >which amended proposals must include a commitment of the
> >submitting Constituency to *hold a new election of Names Council
> >representatives* promptly following the approval by the Board of
> >such amended proposal.
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.33), that, when such
> >proposals are so amended, the Board should examine such
> >proposals to determine *whether the deficiencies have been
> >satisfactorily addressed* and whether to extend the recognition
> >today made.
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.34), that the Names Council
> >*representatives chosen by the provisionally recognized
> >Constituencies shall constitute the provisional Names Council, with
> >all the powers set forth in the Bylaws* other than the selection of
> >ICANN Directors (pursuant to Section 2(e) of Article VI-B of the
> >Bylaws), which selection powers will be deferred until such time as
> >the Board determines it has made sufficient final recognitions.
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.35), that the Board
> >*requests* that the Constituency for gTLD registries agree, for so
> >long as Network Solutions is the only participant in such
> >Constituency, to select only one individual (rather than three) to
> >represent that Constituency on the provisional Names Council, and
> >the Board states that if such Constituency does not agree to make
> >only one such selection, the Board will amend the Bylaws to
> >effectuate such goal.
> 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"
Brian C. Hollingsworth
Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet
Communications Affairs and Policy
Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European