Re: Call for comments on DNSO Names Council amendments (Deadline: August 10)

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> The ICANN Board has posted a proposed set of amendments to the ICANN Bylaws
> relating to the DNSO Names Council.  Most notably, the proposed amendments
> are intended to limit any one company or organization to one representative
> on the DNSO Names Council.

A couple of points:

  1. These proposed changes were not in effect during the Berlin meeting.

     Indeed, at the time of the Berlin meeting, the By-laws gave all
     recognized constituncies the power and right to designate three
     people to the names council of the DNSO.

     Yet when that was tried by one recognized constituency, those people
     were excluded despite the presence of ICANN's CEO and legal counsel at
     that meeting.
 
     ICANN was acting beyond its then-existing bylaws, and in advance of
     this amendment.

     This amendment does not have retroactive effect.

     It is evident that the the gTLD Constituency was acting within its
     rights at the time of the Berlin, and that the exclusion of
     its designated names council representatives was an act by ICANN in
     contravention of ICANN's bylaws.

     Given that the DNSO has proceeded into substantive issues, this
     failure taints everything that the DNSO has done to date.


  2. This amendment cites an "evident consensus".  How was that "evident
     consensus" ascertained?  Certainly at the time of the Berlin meeting
     this question had neither been clearly asked nor discussed in any
     forum.  And having listened into the Berlin meetings, I can attest
     that I did not perceive any discussion of these matters, much less
     the "clear sentiment of the attendees and online particpants."

     If I don't make myself clear, let me be blunt:

     I perceive no evidence to support the claim that there was such a
     consensus in existance at the time of the Berlin meeting, in
     particular at the time of the exclusion of the gTLD's designated
     representives to the Names Council.

     I do agree that at the present time there may indeed be such a
     consensus, a consensus that has evolved *after* the exclusion
     occurred.
     
     But this is merely a guess based on exactly the same evidence
     as is available to ICANN's board.  And I, like the ICANN board,
     could be utterly wrong whether such a consensus actually exists
     at the present time.

     Rather than the blind and unsubstantated claim of "evident consensus"
     made in the ICANN anouncement, may I suggest that ICANN actually take
     an explicit poll of the various mailing lists to elicit actual opinions
     pro and con on this question.

     I will begin the process: I think that this amendment is a useful
     improvement to the ICANN by-laws.

		--karl--