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

Re: [names] consensus and the contracts

This is one of the few occasions where I agree with
Joe.  The NSI/ICANN/Commerce deal does gives NSI some
protections over ICANN's egregious manipulations of
the definition of consensus, but it does little to
protect anyone else. :-(


At 11:17 AM 10/12/99 , Joe Sims wrote:

>This may be correct, but does not have to be.  It assumes that the
>standards set forth in the NSI contracts are seen as workable and desirable
>by the community as a whole.
>First, just to correct the record, what I said earlier is that the
>agreements merely set forth those circumstances under which NSI must comply
>with an ICANN policy decision.  If no compliance by NSI is required,
>obviously the criteria set forth do not constrain what ICANN can do.  NSI
>says they are not opposed to new gTLDs, but even if it changes its
>position, the agreements (as opposed to ICANN bylaws) would not give them
>any basis for objecting to a Board decision (with the minor exceptions
>noted in my earlier post, all of which are not significant in my view).
>On your broader point, since the criteria set forth in the Registry
>Agreement apply only to NSI, and the criteria set forth in the Registrar
>Accreditation Agreement do not add anything meaningful to the criteria and
>concepts set forth in the bylaws, it is not clear that the agreements have
>any inevitable effect.  If, on the other hand, the community at large
>concludes that the articulation of consensus that is contained in the
>agreements is a useful one, it can obviously be ported to a broader
>Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:
>     Joe Sims replied to Ben Edelman (I don't have the messages in
>front of me) that the "consensus" provisions in the new contracts are less
>constraining than they might look, since they only kick in if NSI or a
>registrar in fact challenges a particular action.  gTLD expansion, Joe
>suggests, won't be constrained by the consensus provisions, since NSI
>isn't opposed to new gTLDs.  (Somebody please correct me if I'm
>remembering his message incorrectly.)
>      This is fine so far as it goes, but it doesn't seem to me like a
>complete answer.  ICANN has repeatedly proclaimed itself a consensus-based
>organization, and the new documents purport to set out a definition of
>"consensus."  This suggests to me that *any* action ICANN takes that
>doesn't comport with the "consensus" requirements set out in the contracts
>will now be widely perceived as illegitimate, and that the ICANN Board
>will be reluctant to take such action.  The impact of the new documents,
>thus, will be to strongly discourage *any* action taken by ICANN relevant
>to domain names without, say, a supermajority of the Names Council,
>without regard to whether the action would technically violate the
>contracts.  Doesn't that bring Ben's question back to the fore?
>Jonathan Weinberg


Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
http://www.fenello.com  770-392-9480