Karl Auerbach wrote:
>(Remember as it stands, SO's still direct ICANN policy, the board has only
>the thinnest of grounds to stop an SO initiative.)
>
>So what you are seeing in that statement about SO's being advisers is
>nothing more than a fig leaf - but it doesn't even begin to cover up the
>fact that the SO's are still "the" source of policy and power under ICANN.
I think there's a great deal of merit to this point. At the meeting in DC
two weeks ago among all of the entities currently circulating DNSO
proposals, there was apparent consensus that the SOs *recommend* policy
to ICANN, they don't *make* policy. But if the Board "shall accept"
policy recommendations (see language from Bylaws below), then I don't
really see what the difference is.
It's all going to depend on how the ICANN Board interprets the language
about whether a proposal "furthers the purposes of, and is in the best
interest of, the Corporation."
Does the "best interest of the Corporation" provision give them wide
latitude to exercise independent judgment? Or does this simply give them
the ability to reject a recommendation that calls for the dismantling of
ICANN (or something similarly detrimental)? This determines the balance
between the Board and the SOs.
The Bylaws *don't* say "best interest of the internet" or "best interest
of the Domain Names System," etc. If you read section (f)(1) below
narrowly, the Board's discretion is really quite limited.
I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on this, as well as comments from
the Board.
-- Bret
=---------------------------------------------------------------=
ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1 (f):
(f) Subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 3,
the Board shall accept the recommendations of a Supporting
Organization if the Board finds that the recommended action,
policy or procedure
(1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best
interest of, the Corporation,
(2) complies with the Articles and Bylaws,
(3) was arrived at through fair and open processes
(including permitting participation by representatives
of other Supporting Organizations if requested), and
(4) is not reasonably opposed by any of the other
Supporting Organizations.
No recommendation of a Supporting Organization shall be adopted
unless the votes in favor of adoption would be sufficient for
adoption by the Board without taking account of either the
Directors nominated for election by that Supporting Organization
or their votes.
=---------------------------------------------------------------=
