On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 02:43:04PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
[...]
>
> 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.
As far as the purposes of the corporation, from the articles of
incorporation:
"the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue
the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of
government and promoting the global public interest in the
operational stability of the Internet..."
"4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet
community as a whole..."
So the board can, by the bylaws, dismiss any policy it thinks do not
meet these criteria.
The whole discussion is a blind debate about trees that pays no
attention to the forest. Here are some characteristics of the
forest: The bylaws are interpreted by the Board, and that
interpretation can only be challenged by a lawsuit brought by the AG
of California; the SOs elect half the Board; any serious disagreement
by another SO will impact a policy; the actual powers of the
corporation as a whole are seriously constrained by a number of
external factors; the bylaws can be changed by the board.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
