RE: [IFWP] The Sims-Auerbach Correspondence (was: The CPT- ICANN Correspondence

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > Then there ought to be absolutely no objection to removing virtually all
> > but the last paragraph of section VI.2.(e), all of section VI.2.(f), and
> > the middle part of VI.2.(g) from the ICANN bylaws.
> > 
> Not really.
> Under the current bylaws, nothing prevents the Board from doing what they
> want with a recommandation, with the justification that they reject it
> because they think that it is not in the best interest of the Corporation
> (see VI.2.e.1 below)
> 
> 	      (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best interest of,
> the
> 	          Corporation;
> 
> According to my reading, the current bylaws only set a frame of reference
> for the political context in which the recommendations will be
> accepted/rejected, but do not limit the real power of the Board.
> 
> May I know what is the *real* reason why you insist in making changes to the
> bylaws that would have no added value?

As you seem to agree, the bylaws contain language which has no value.

And since that language uses mandatory words to define what you say are
really discretionary acts, to that extent the bylaws are misleading.

Don't you think the bylaws should say what they are purported to mean.


By-the-way, I don't like the tone that says that there is an evil motive
in asking that the bylaws reflect what they are supposed to mean.

If the bylaws use the word "shall" and the intent is "may", then the
bylaws should be amended.

If the bylaws contain limitations which are redundant then the redundancy
should be removed because it tends to mislead one into believing that the
enumerated list of things is the exclusive and sole list of things.

ICANN is already on the verge of failing.  It doesn't need to add to its
woes by by-laws that apparently have a meaning that the opposite of what
is intended.

So let's dispense with the innuendo about my "*real* reason".

By-the-way, if you think bylaws are merely a "frame of reference" to be
disregarded as the political winds blow, then you might be surprised when
California Corporations law comes to roost on the doorstep and says
"nevermore".

		--karl--