[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [IFWP] Re: The Sims-Auerbach Correspondence
> Joe Sims wrote:
> Karl, I don't want this to appear condescending (even though it probably
I expect condescension from you.
But don't worry, it's easy to dismiss.
And as I've said, I'm glad that you have finally come around to the BWG
position that you fought so hard against last year.
I am indeed happy for the new interpretation.
I'm glad that the board now has full, unfettered power to govern the
actions of the corporation, that the board can stop any SO action and that
the board can initiate any action despite what an SO might think.
It's good that the board is now clearly in the drivers seat, that they
have no place to hide their ultimate responsibility for actions taken
under the name of ICANN or its sub-bodies.
It is now very clear that, for example, the ICANN board can step onto the
PSO and change a protocol parameter should the board feel that it ought to
It is now clear that the ICANN board has the power to come up with its own
IP address allocation plan and adopt it without ever listening to one word
the Address SO may say.
As for the content of your comment --
I'm observing that you seem not to know about the vast discussion that has
occurred about the powers of the board and the SO's. You really ought to
watch the mailing lists and not the nearly vacuous email@example.com.
I'm surprised that you hadn't noticed that the related sections of the
by-laws have been amended to add more, but not complete, clarity to the