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

No Subject

My comments relate to the following proposed revision:
If a member of any such Supporting Organization Council or such other
body accepts a nomination to be considered to serve on the Board, such
member shall not, following such nomination, participate in any
discussion of, or vote by, such Supporting Organization Council or other
body relating to the selection of Directors by such Council 

To begin with, I direct the ICANN Board to the webcast of the recent
Names Council meeting (Sept 23) regarding the NC's position on these
propsed revised bylaws, at which Andrew McLaughlin was present.  

>From a methodology level, I am concerned that this proposed revision
came into existence in a top down, rather than bottoms up manner and at
a critical time in the eleciton process where we have very little time
to react or make any necessary changes if the revisions are adopted
(please note that I am not arguing that we did not have sufficient time
to consider the revisions, but to react to them if they are adopted).
Apparently, concerns were expresssed to the ICANN Board (although the
Names Council was told there are no public records of such concerns)
regarding the influence that the Names Council could have on the DNSO
Board elections.  I am concerned that the  ICANN Board has gone directly
to the step of preparing an amendment to its bylaws (something I would
consider a significant move) based on non-public comments that were not
communicated to the NC, the Constituencies or the GA.

On a substantive level, I do not have a problem with the proposed
revision, provided that the Constituencies are allowed to substitue any
Board nominees NC members with alternates simply for the duration of the