[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Open and closed
Per the posted minutes of the Berlin meeting (5/27/99),
http://www.icann.org/minutes/berlinminutes.html :
"Finally, on a related matter, staff reported that ICANN had
solicited public comments on the question of whether "initial DNSO
Constituencies currently identified as 'ccTLD registries' and 'gTLD
registries' be re-categorized as 'open registries' and 'closed
registries,' identified according to whether the registry is open to
any registrant, worldwide ('open'), or is instead limited to certain
registrants based on geography, intended use, or other criteria
('closed')," and that the response had been largely negative;
therefore, the staff did not recommend taking any action on the
matter at this time."
Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental Advisory
Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" for the BoD?
Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC for this advice, against
the recommendations of "staff"? Although there is no evidence that
the issue was revisited 6/23, was it on the agenda for the 8/12
telephone meeting?
On a related note, I suggest that ICANN and its associated groups
and committees make an effort to put the dates of origin and last-
modification on their web pages? In particular reference to
amendments to the Bylaws, where the 'paper trail' itself might be of
interest, could this annotation be expanded to preserve rather than
over-write the earlier version(s)?
Appreciating that following this up with any consistency is likely to
have only low priority for staff resources, I volunteer my hard drive
as a repository, and will provide the 5 Jun version of the ICANN
Bylaws, on request. (The relevant sections (2) and (3) are
appended below.) I hope someone with more resources can
archive the "extensive public comment," including the
documentation when "this matter was first discussed at ICANN's
May meetings in Berlin." (I note at the URL given above, that
Resolution 99.35 says only that" the Board requests that the
Constituency for gTLD registries agree... to select only one
individual (rather than three) to represent that Constituency on the
provisional Names Council, and the Board states that if such
Constituency does not agree to make only one such selection, the
Board will amend the Bylaws to effectuate such goal." The minutes
make no note of extensive public comment at that meeting, or that
the resolution embodied a consensus of attendees altho I agree
that some of the other resolutions (also appended) suggest there
was some concern at least on the part of the Interim Board.
While there is certainly a "need of the DNSO Names Council for
prompt clarification of its membership structure," I confess I am
surprised that this reversal of policy was not considered a
"significant Internet policy issue" to be discussed at a quarterly
meeting rather than on a special meeting teleconference. Has the
DNSO in fact "amended its proposal"? (icann.org/dnso/ does not
apparently refer to any proposal, nor have the "organizers of the
provisional Names Council" done so at http://www.dnso.org/
kerry miller
====
References:
http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac1.htm
Agenda for ICANN GAC (Meeting III, 9:00am to 6:30pm [!],
8/24/99 ) Santiago, Chile
4.Discussion on domains containing restrictions or conditions on
registration that serve to ensure certainty with respect to the
application and enforcement of laws ("restricted domains"), as
opposed to domains containing no such restrictions or conditions
on registrations ("open domains").
5.Discussion on principles for the delegation of management for
ccTLDs.
====
As posted 5 June, VI (2) a reads in its entirety:
" The NC shall consist of three representatives from each
Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set
forth in Section 3 of this Article."
VI (3)c reads in part:
" Nominations within each Constituency may be made by any
member of the Constituency, but no such member may make more
than one nomination in any single Constituency; provided that this
limitation shall not apply to any Constituency with less than
three members."
As amended 12 August:
"The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance
with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency
recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
3 of this Article."
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Constituency may have more
representatives on the NC than there are members of the
Constituency."
=========
Further minutes of the Berlin meeting (my emphasis):
FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.32), that the President of
the Corporation is directed to work with the Constituencies to
amend their proposals to address deficiencies noted by the Board,
which amended proposals must include a commitment of the
submitting Constituency to *hold a new election of Names Council
representatives* promptly following the approval by the Board of
such amended proposal.
FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.33), that, when such
proposals are so amended, the Board should examine such
proposals to determine *whether the deficiencies have been
satisfactorily addressed* and whether to extend the recognition
today made.
FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.34), that the Names Council
*representatives chosen by the provisionally recognized
Constituencies shall constitute the provisional Names Council, with
all the powers set forth in the Bylaws* other than the selection of
ICANN Directors (pursuant to Section 2(e) of Article VI-B of the
Bylaws), which selection powers will be deferred until such time as
the Board determines it has made sufficient final recognitions.
FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.35), that the Board
*requests* that the Constituency for gTLD registries agree, for so
long as Network Solutions is the only participant in such
Constituency, to select only one individual (rather than three) to
represent that Constituency on the provisional Names Council, and
the Board states that if such Constituency does not agree to make
only one such selection, the Board will amend the Bylaws to
effectuate such goal.
===